Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the county constituency of Christchurch, in the room of the hon. Robert James Adley Esquire, deceased. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Royal High School

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Crown Office to vacate the old Royal High school in Edinburgh; and what plans he has for the future use of the building.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The Crown Office is expected to vacate the old Royal High school at the beginning of 1994. The building is the responsibility of Property Holdings, which is currently considering its future.

Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the Crown Office is leaving the old Royal High school, that it costs £150,000 per annum to maintain and keep secure, and that it was used only three times last year, surely the time has come for the Government to dispose of the building, which has become a monument to and a relic of the failed and discredited policy of the Labour party? Does he furthermore agree that it would make an ideal art gallery or museum of Scottish history?

Mr. Lang: The building is not the direct responsibility of the Scottish Office, but the developments that I have just described show the need for the Government to consider where future meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee —if and when in Edinburgh—should take place. There is no shortage of alternative buildings in Edinburgh.

Mr. Canavan: Would not it be in everyone's best interests if the Scottish Parliament moved into the old high school building? The Crown Office team could move across the road to the ministerial suite at the Scottish Office, and the ministerial team at the Scottish Office could be evicted to the top of Leith walk, where I am sure there is a convenient phone box big enough to hold them and their dwindling band of supporters in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman has given us a glimpse of the Labour party's manifesto for the next general election, I look forward to that campaign.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that three quarters of the Scottish people voted for a Scottish Parliament, and would much prefer that that Parliament met in the Royal High school? Would not it be outrageous if the Government's profiteering dogma led to that building being used for any other purpose? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish people would much prefer their elected representatives to discuss, for example, their local government than to have policies handed down to them in dribs and drabs by leaked documents in a thoroughly unacceptable way?

Mr. Lang: The Royal High school was built as a school —it may have been an appropriate design for a school in its day—but the building has no special significance as regards the deliberations of the House or its Committee. If it stands as anything, perhaps it is as a monument to the folly of the last Labour Government who, in anticipation of the outcome of a referendum and of a subsequent general election, spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and subsequently found themselves rejected in a referendum and a general election.

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of services in Scotland.

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of services in Scotland.

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet COSLA to discuss the provision of local government services in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government and I will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Friday this week as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Mr. McMaster: May I jolt the Secretary of State's memory back to the time when he first mooted that stupid plan to reorganise local government in Scotland? Does he recall that the Opposition predicted then that he was not about to embark on a voyage of discovery, because he knew precisely where his journey would lead? If the stories in The Scotsman are right—I suspect that they are not far wrong—how does the Secretary of State justify treating the House and the people of Scotland with such arrogant contempt? Which Minister authorised the leak or, if it was not authorised, what action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to find the source? How can he deny that the purpose of the exercise is to save the last few Tory enclaves in Scotland? Does he seriously expect anyone to believe that the whole blatant, bogus, bankrupt exercise is anything other than a squalid and corrupt piece of gerrymandering by a squalid and corrupt Government?

Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not normal practice to comment on allegedly leaked documents. The proposals for local government reform that we shall bring before the House shortly will be the outcome of a longer, more detailed and comprehensive consultation process than any previous Government


initiative that I can remember. It is encouraging that, far from being unpopular, local government reform is rising consistently in the opinion polls.

Mr. Norman Hogg: If local government reform is rising in public opinion polls, the same is certainly not happening to the prestige of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which is hitting a new low. Surely the leaks in The Scotsman, which have not been denied by anyone in the Government, confirm that the Secretary of State has lost his hold on the Scottish Office administration, and that something really has to be done about it. It is not good enough to treat the representatives of Scottish local authorities with such contempt. They are elected in their own right, and speak for the people of Scotland in a way that the Secretary of State could not hope to achieve.

Mr. Lang: Setting aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark, which questions both the validity of election to this place and the importance of this Parliament for Scotland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, allow me to emphasise that I have considerable respect for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is why I, along with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responsible for local government, have regular meetings with its representatives.

Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Secretary of State explain his refusal to appoint a committee to investigate the local government changes in Scotland? Did he take the decision upon himself, or did he authorise Vance and Owen to come to Scotland and build safe Tory havens there?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman contains his soul in patience he will shortly understand what we propose for Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend received representations on local government reorganisation from all the parties, or is he still waiting for the Opposition's policies on that subject, as on so many others?

Mr. Lang: We have received a substantial number of representations on local government reform, from a broad range of sources. Some were positive and forward-looking, and we have taken those seriously into account. Others were less so, and they, of course, have been taken less seriously.

Mr. McAllion: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain to them whether the Government intend to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland by making it illegal to disconnect domestic consumers from the water supply in England and Wales, or to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales by making it legal to disconnect domestic consumers in Scotland? If, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, this is a unitary Parliament ruling over a unitary British state, he cannot discriminate between citizens of that state on the basis of where they happen to live. What is the Government's intention?

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman is so careless about safeguarding the Union is that he does not realise that Union does not necessarily mean uniformity. One of the features of Scotland's position within the United Kingdom is our capacity to accommodate the diversity of Scottish interests and needs.

I am not responsible for disconnections policy in England and Wales, and I would not presume to offer advice to my colleagues on the subject. With regard to Scotland, my answer remains what it has always been: I have no plans to make any changes there.

Mr. John Marshall: As a former Aberdeen city councillor, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to COSLA that many Conservative Members believe that the four Scottish cities should once again become all-purpose local authorities?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case, and, indeed, we are already committed to creating all-purpose local authorities, the details of which I look forward to announcing shortly.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the integrity of the current Borders region boundaries is breached by, for example, putting Berwickshire with East Lothian—causing local anger and outrage, especially in Berwickshire—will the Secretary of State give the House an idea of what level of public demonstration of discontent he is prepared to accept to make him change his cock-eyed proposals?

Mr. Lang: I hope that when our proposals are presented to the House and to the people of Scotland, they will be popular I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the report in today's newspapers about the forthcoming proposals of the independent and impartial Parliamentary Boundary Commission. That is a matter for it and not for me.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When the Secretary of State meets representatives of COSLA, especially those from Dumfries and Galloway, will he discuss possible improvements to the ferry facilities at Stranraer harbour?

Mr. Lang: I may not have the opportunity to place the question of harbour facilities at Stranraer on the agenda for the meeting on Friday, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Member of Parliament for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, I attach great importance to the improvement of facilities at the harbour in Stranraer.

Mr. McFall: One of the most important local authority functions is the police. COSLA and others have already expressed great concern about the wholesale changes to the police authorities and their boundaries that the Government propose. Will he acknowledge that the Sheehy proposals for performance-related pay could, in some instances, result in the police boosting their pay by arresting people for minor offences, which currently are dealt with by a sensible use of discretion? When he next meets representatives of COSLA, will he explain what practical steps the Government will take to ensure that such an unfortunate situation does not arise?

Mr. Lang: We shall have something to say about the future of police forces when we announce our proposals for the changes in local government. The Sheehy report is going out to consultation and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity, along with everybody else, to submit his thoughts during that consultative process.

Industrial Contamination

Q.3 Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making an extra allocation of financial resources to Scottish local authorities to enable them to make safe sites contaminated by former industrial usage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Responsibility for dealing with contaminated land rests with the site owners. Local enterprise companies can assist with the reclamation of these sites and local authorities already receive funding through the revenue support grant for their expenditure on environmental services.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware that in Cambuslang, Rutherglen and Toryglen in my constituency a number of sites are contaminated by chromium waste dumped by a long-gone chemical works? Despite appreciated assistance from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), regarding finance for making those sites safe, whether they are publicly or privately owned, there is no finance available totally to clear them and to make them safe. Will the Minister assure us that the matter will be considered at a meeting with myself and other constituency representatives to try to find ways in which we can secure finance to make those sites safe for the public?

Sir Hector Monro: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the problem of chromium waste in his constituency and if I can help, I will gladly do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the local enterprise company, which in this case is the Glasgow Development Agency, and it must decide what financial assistance it can provide. If a meeting will help, we must arrange one.

Dr. Godman: One tatty old building that has been contaminated by former industrial usage and neglect, well known to the Minister and myself, is the Gourock ropeworks building in Port Glasgow. Is that disgraceful old building to be conserved or demolished? Will the Minister make up his mind, because the Inverclyde district council simply does not have the wherewithal to pay for the conservation of the building? Why not play the game with the people of Port Glasgow and allow the building to be demolished?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is an important and listed building, so we must be careful about the steps that we take. I understand that the enterprise authority is considering the matter, and a decision may be made in the not-too-distant future. We cannot pull down such an important building without the most careful consideration.

Scottish Enterprise

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last had discussions with Scottish Enterprise on its outturn expenditure for 1992–93.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I have regular contact with Scottish Enterprise on a range of

matters. No meeting has taken place to discuss outturn expenditure for 1992–93 as it was within the budget limit, but did not involve significant underspending.

Mr. Connarty: Has the Minister asked in the past, or will he ask in the future, for detailed figures about the amount spent by Scottish Enterprise and by the local enterprise companies on consultancies? Is he aware that when I criticised my local enterprise company for spending money on something that I thought was wrong, I had a flood of letters from businesses throughout Scotland saying that what disturbed them was that when they asked for money and assistance, they were sent a consultant? Those consultancies consist of what have been described as broken-down accountants, many of whom are former Scottish Development Agency employees.
There is now a serious question, which I hope the Minister will investigate, about exactly how much pork barrelling is going on. If it is not illegal, just how much is value for money? The business community is growing sick of consultants, who were once SDA employees, growing fat and not aiding the companies that look for assistance, but lining their own pockets from Scottish Enterprise funds.

Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's general allegation. There are facilities, which have been used, for audit investigations by Scottish Enterprise when there are allegations against local enterprise companies. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to take a strong interest in the activities of local enterprise companies and that he will make representations to them. They are ultimately publicly accountable, and it is healthy that the hon. Gentleman and others take a real and close interest in their detailed activities.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) should come to my part of the world—Kincardine and Deeside. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the Kincardine and Deeside Enterprise Trust, which is part of Grampian Enterprise, for setting up open learning schemes aimed at self-employed managers and intended specifically to teach them small business management and business methods, and to deal with tourism. Is not that Scottish Enterprise working at its best, being flexible and aiming its activities to where they are required in a way that makes it possible for managers to participate?

Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I was in his part of the world recently, I was able to see something of the work that the enterprise trust and Grampian Enterprise were undertaking in open learning and in other ways, such as the skill seeker programme in which Grampian Enterprise has been in the lead. That is the essence of the local enterprise company network. Individual enterprise companies can have flexibility and can take initiatives to meet the needs of their own local areas.

Mr. Wallace: What percentage of Scottish Enterprise's budget is attributable to training? Given that the Minister has just explained to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East the importance that he attaches to public accountability, will he deplore the practice by some local enterprise companies of inserting contractual terms that prohibit any training provider from criticising the local enterprise company for any of the ways in which it handles the


budget? Surely the local enterprise companies, which are responsible for public money, should not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism.

Mr. Stewart: The local enterprise companies do not seek to make themselves immune from public criticism. They have to have meetings and they have to publish accounts. Ultimately, they are responsible, through Scottish Enterprise and the Secretary of State, to the House.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of allegations made by the Labour MEPs MacMahon and McCubbin that Scottish Enterprise has misused European social funds? The fact that they have made those allegations may have jeopardised future funding. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there is any truth in the allegations? If he cannot confirm their truth, will he condemn the actions of those who have been elected to responsible places and yet have acted so contemptuously?

Mr. Stewart: Not only am I aware of the allegations, which received wide publicity, but I wrote to Mr. Hugh MacMahon, with copies to Mr. McCubbin and to hon. Members. I shall put the matter in a more neutral way than my hon. Friend has done. I believe that the two Members of the European Parliament were, at the very least, extremely, seriously and deliberately misled about the facts of the situation.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister said earlier that local enterprise companies are publicly accountable. That is nonsense. They are secret, self-serving societies which are inward-turned and do not have to account at all.
The Minister said that he was in favour of accountability. Performance tables and public reports have been imposed on other organisations. When will the Minister impose performance tables on local enterprise companies?

Mr. Stewart: The performance of LECs is critical in the determination by Scottish Enterprise of their budgets for future years. That process is comprehensive and rigorous.

Local Government Corruption

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce corruption in local government, in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: There are a number of forms of redress against corruption in local government, notably through the courts, the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland, the local government omudsman and the statutory powers available to my right hon. Friend. The Bill on local government reorganisation that my right hon. Friend intends to introduce will be an opportunity for consideration of the future framework within which local government operates.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend think that the events surrounding Monklands district council—council jobs provided to relatives of Labour councillors, the council leader's rather dubious business activities with his own council and the disastrous £1 million a year loss on the Quadrant shopping centre—result from corruption alone, or merely from a mixture of incompetence and corruption?
Is my hon. Friend aware that the two Labour Members who represent that area have said nothing in the House

about the shenanigans? Is he also aware of the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition who, at his recent constituency AGM, had to witness the expulsion of some of the Labour mafia who were involved? Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole situation—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a statement, but Question Time. The hon. Member has asked enough questions.

Mr. Stewart: I should have thought that the major piece of embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition on that subject was when he was picketed outside his own constituency surgery by members of his own party. I do not think that that has ever happened to any other hon. Member.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members ought to guard their language in the House. As "Erskine May" indicates, moderate language is the cornerstone and the hallmark of our parliamentary debates. I will not take a point of order at this juncture. I will simply remind the House that this is a civilised debating Chamber. We should conduct ourselves accordingly.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government take seriously the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). The people of Scotland continue to be astonished by the silence from the two hon. Members who represent the Monklands area in the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: Would not it be a most serious piece of corruption for Scottish local government to be carved up by the Government purely on the basis of the Government's political expediency? Will the Minister give an undertaking that no historic Scottish county will be carved up in the forthcoming review without the consent and support of the people in the area concerned?

Mr. Stewart: I note that that is another example of Scottish Labour Members being prepared to discuss anything except Monklands.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, the hon. Member will have to await the announcement that my right hon. Friend will make shortly.

Mr. Dickens: Whenever we discuss the allegations about Monklands district council, is it not apparent that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) never reveals to the House that from 1975 he served as provost to Monklands district council?

Mr. Stewart: To be fair to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), it is a matter of public record that he was provost to that council. He does not hide that. But he certainly hides his opinion about what has been happening in that district council since his tenure as provost.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is busy promoting a policy of good governance throughout the world and that one of the principles involved is that the party in power should not seek to manipulate the constitutional or electoral rules to its advantage? Is the Minister aware that the Scottish
Office is in danger of being in breach of that policy if The Scotsman leak is anything to go by? Not since South Africa created Bophuthatswana out of 20 different bits of the map has there been such naked corruption.

Mr. Connarty: Answer the question.

Mr. Stewart: I am answering the question. I repudiate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Such language does his considerable reputation no good whatever. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that when he sees and understands the details of the Government's proposals, he will be the first to withdraw his absurd allegations.

Rents to Mortgages

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures on sales under the rents-to-mortgages scheme in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): As at the end of June, there had been 765 sales under the pilot rent-to-mortgage scheme operated by Scottish Homes.

Mrs. Gorman: I am delighted at the growing success of that scheme in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it just shows that the people in Scotland are great supporters of that fundamental Conservative policy, which is the antithesis of the policy of the Labour party, which has always opposed the sale of council houses? Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme was pioneered in my constituency, where we are joining in with the sales? Is he further aware that, following its success in Scotland, pioneered by the Conservatives, of course, the scheme will now be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The scheme has been a great success. It will be an even greater success. It will create a wholly new market. My hon. Friend will be particularly interested to know that to date in Scotland 26·4 per cent. of council houses have been sold and that the figure for England is virtually identical-26·5 per cent. The rent-to-mortgage scheme will open up a whole new market. It will give a statutory right to those involved. I believe that that will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: Instead of continuing his obsession with selling as many houses as possible, will the Minister tell the House what progress he is making in establishing mortgage-to-rent schemes rather than rent-to-mortgage schemes to allow people who, as a result of the Government's economic policies have been made redundant and are unable to continue with their mortgage payments can continue to live in the house which has become their home?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have no objection to mortgage-to-rent schemes where the local authority considers that they are practicable and that there is a priority for them. In both Clackmannan and Kyle and Carrick such schemes are in operation. I am in favour of them if the district council considers that local circumstances demand them. In Scotland, some 257,000

houses have been built since 1979. That is a considerable number. The funding for housing in Scotland is substantial.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that at least in Gordon district in my constituency the council has been willing to adopt every conceivable means of providing homes to meet needs and has not argued with any of the various options on offer, yet it is still far from able to meet the demand for affordable houses in Gordon district? When will the Minister ensure that all the relevant agencies in Gordon can provide the houses that people need?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's constituency suffers from the problems associated with success and a growing population. I know that he has been in touch with Scottish Homes. It is investing millions of pounds in his constituency. That should be an on-going process. I hope that the strategic agreement, which I understand has been formed with the local council, or is about to be, will prove to be extremely successful. All possibilities should be explored.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister confirm that, by the end of 1992, 24,000 council houses had been sold and were not replaced with housing for rent? Does he further agree that, as it is the better housing that goes, council tenants will soon be left with nothing but tenements and multi-stories in which to live? Did not the Scottish Office once again grossly overestimate the sales of council houses, knowing full well that the supplementary allocations would not be enough and thus would result in less money being spent on making council houses fit to live in? Does not all that give a good idea of what tenants can expect if the Government's gerrymandered boundaries become a reality?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some 266,000 public sector houses have sold in Scotland. Each one of them has its own market value. They have sold throughout councils in Scotland. I can say also that the funds recovered have been spent on public sector housing in Scotland as a result and have greatly benefited the rest of the public sector housing. On supplementary allocations, we will not know the position until later this year. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's constituency representations, and those from other constituencies in Scotland.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reassessment he has made of the Touche Ross report on local government reform.

Mr. Lang: We have taken account of the wide range of comments received on the Touche Ross report on local government reform. I intend to include our revised estimates of costs and savings in, the White Paper setting out our local government reform proposals, which I hope to publish shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give the House of Commons a clear, unambiguous assurance that no part of public expenditure in Scotland will be cut because of the transition costs of local government reform or its on-going costs? Do we have that clear assurance?

Mr. Lang: The transition costs of local government reform will have to be borne from the resources available to the Scottish Office block. However, as the figures that I shall publish in the forthcoming White Paper will show, the cost of transition will be recovered quickly as a result of the savings to be had from single-tier all-purpose authorities.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that savings from local government reform will take place in a manner that will benefit the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that the incompetence and corruption of Monklands district council is squeezed dry by local government reform so that that council is in a better financial state and we stop the £1 million a year wasted on the Quadrant shopping centre development and the £3 million a year wasted on the leisure development, which is costing people in that area a considerable sum of money?

Mr. Lang: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. On the second part, when the Government bring forward proposals for reform, he will be able to judge for himself whether his anxieties are met.

Mr. Hood: Has Touche Ross made any recommendations on the number of councillors who will be required under local government reform? When the Secretary of State presents his White Paper to the House, will it cover any recommendations on the number of councillors? Has that been addressed in the White Paper, and will we be able to discuss it?

Mr. Lang: Touche Ross did not make recommendations on the number of local authority councillors, although in preparing its report, it had to make a number of assumptions across a broad range about the number of officials who would be involved in certain areas of local government expenditure. On the question whether that matter will be addressed in the Government's forthcoming White Paper, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to contain his soul in patience.

Mr. Salmond: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's earlier remarks. He was extremely careful not to deny the accuracy of The Scotsman leak. Does he not think that the gerrymandering of Scottish local government boundary lines is too high a price to pay for keeping a blue rose on the lapel of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? Does he not understand that, with 16 per cent. of the vote for the Tory party, it is geometrically impossible to draw lines in a way that guarantees safe havens for his party? Does he think that a Secretary of State who has failed on Ravenscraig, Rosyth and the Euro-seats and who is now gerrymandering Scottish local government is fit to occupy that high office?

Mr. Lang: I have already made it clear that the Government do not comment on allegedly leaked documents. Therefore, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question falls.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As local authorities have a statutory requirement to advertise certain of their activities in the local newspapers, does the Secretary of State accept that he has failed in not taking action against

Monklands district council, which campaigned against the local newspaper, and instead is awaiting the outcome of the Touche Ross report?

Mr. Lang: I have certain statutory powers, but they are limited. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given close consideration to the matter and I continue to keep a close watch on it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Touche Ross figures to which he gave so much regard are fatally flawed and therefore make this whole exercise inappropriate? Will he accept that the House is sick and tired of his teasing at the Dispatch Box about when the White Paper is to be published? When will it be published? When will we know? Perhaps more importantly, will he accept that, given that this whole exercise is fatally flawed, he ought to do the decent thing, abandon it, and appoint an independent commission that can do justice to the whole of Scottish local government?

Mr. Lang: The Touche Ross report is far from being flawed. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities co-operated in the preparation of that report and all the signs from subsequent work by consultants for other local authorities and from other submissions to the Government show that the broad trend of the Touche Ross report is accurate. That report made a certain number of assumptions, which it had to do in the context of the work that it was carrying out. More detailed submissions have led to some of those assumptions being refined further, but the broad trend of the report remains as it was. If anyone is discredited on the question of the cost of local government reform, it is the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We have not forgotten his belief, publicly stated without qualification, that the cost of local government reform would be £600 million. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, which for him will probably be a sad one.

Scottish Enterprise

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss employment prospects in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I meet frequently the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a wide range of issues, including economic prospects generally.

Mr. Graham: The Minister will realise that government by the Tories in Scotland has cost nearly 200,000 manufacturing jobs. We have seen the threatened loss of roughly 1,000 jobs in Rosyth and 450 jobs are to be lost in my constituency in the royal ordnance factory. The Government are dillying and dandering while thousands of young people are not receiving appropriate training or apprenticeships. All that we have seen is the continual decline in manufacturing industries in Scotland. Is it not time that the Government gave us hope by resigning and allowing the people of Scotland to get back to work? I am sick and tired of seeing my folk facing the dole. Is it not time that the Government faced the dole?

Mr. Stewart: Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is 2,421, which is a decline of almost 1,500 over the past five years. I should have thought that even


the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As to manufacturing, I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Member for Fyfe, Central (Mr. McLeish) who is muttering on the Front Bench in his usual way, that manufactured exports from Scotland are, on the most recent figures, at a record level.

Mr. Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that the percentage of the working population in Scotland in work compared with others in the European Community is second in the league table? Is that not more positive information as opposed to the doom and gloom that Opposition Members are spreading?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Denmark is the only major European country with a better figure. Luxembourg, which of course is fairly small, also has a slightly better figure. Civilian employment in Scotland increased by 173,000 between March 1983 and March 1993. Those real figures reveal the nonsense of the constant doom and gloom from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain to the House the shocking state of affairs in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds? Since 1988, thousands more youngsters have become unemployed and out of training as a result of the Government's very unpopular policy of taking benefits away from those kids. Will the Government consider restoring benefits to 16 and 17-year-olds? Will the Minister also consider the discriminatory age-related benefit for 18 to 24-year-olds who do not get paid the same as 25-year-olds and who actually receive £8·55 less? Will the Minister agree to abolish that?

Mr. Stewart: This Government have brought in a guarantee for youth training which is being fully met. That guarantee is available in no other European country. That is the reality and it shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that young people acquire the skills and have the training for the jobs of the future.

Bilateral Trade

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet trade Ministers from overseas to discuss bilateral trade with businesses in the far east.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I meet trade Ministers from the far east from time to time. Most recently my right hon. Friend has met the Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and a delegation of Taiwanese business men.
I propose to visit Japan and South Korea in the autumn.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does the Scottish Office intend to target particular territories? My right hon. Friend has already mentioned South Korea and Japan. Does he also intend to target growing territories such as Hong Kong and Singapore?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are indeed keen to do that. Our targeting has been extremely successful. In the last year for which figures are known, exports to Japan rose by 10 per cent., to Hong Kong by one quarter and to Singapore by one third.
Exports to South Korea have almost doubled. If the reports from Japan this afternoon are correct and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured from the Japanese Government dramatic tariff reductions on imported goods, that will be excellent news for Scottish industry.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State aware that the oil fabrication industry in Scotland faces increasing competition from south-east Asia yards and particularly from South Korean yards? British Petroleum has already awarded a major order covering the Forth field to a South Korean yard and Phillips is considering giving out another major order. Is the Secretary of State just going to leave that kind of situation to the free play of market forces? Does not he believe that it is the responsibility of the Government, and particularly of the Scottish Office, to ensure that the Scottish fabrication industry can compete effectively with South Korean yards? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his Energy colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry in an attempt to ensure that such orders continue to go to yards in Scotland and yards in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: I certainly understand the importance of those yards to the economies of the areas where they are located. However, there can be no question of protecting manufacturing industry in this country from the competitive forces that blow around the world. The only way in which those yards can secure long-lasting employment and security is by being competitive and able to compete and beat the worldwide competition. It is increasingly encouraging that Scottish industry, because it has modernised and because it has invested in new technology, is now competitive and is beating off competition from around the world. Our export orders show the success that we are achieving.

Unemployment

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent total of long-term unemployed people in Scotland; what plans he has to reduce this number; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stewart: In April 1993, there were 86,591 people in Scotland who had been unemployed for 12 months or longer. That represents a rate of increase since April 1992 of about one third of that for Great Britain as a whole. More help than ever before is now available to long-term unemployed people in their efforts to return to work.

Mr. Marshall: Has the Minister absolutely no shame or anger at the tragic figures which, in the case of Glasgow, account for almost one in two of the unemployed? Does he not realise that many long-term unemployed have never had a job since they left school and may never obtain one? Does he not realise that we now have a second generation of long-term unemployed and that those scandalous figures are the biggest blight on the face of Scottish society today? Instead of cutting funding and training, when will the Government tackle that problem with the priority, urgency and resources that it so desperately requires?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware of the measures that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman might have


mentioned that, in his own constituency, for example, the number of unemployed has dropped over the past five years from 6,968 to 4,723—a very substantial drop indeed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the long-term unemployed are a priority. Two out of three unemployed people go off the register within six months —they go back into the labour market. The Government have brought in a package of new measures such as learning for work, the local enterprise company challenge, the expansion of business start-ups and community action, all of which are directed specifically to help the problem of the long-term unemployed. Frankly, it does neither the long-term unemployed nor anyone else any good when Opposition Members do not recognise that the Government are tackling the problem and are devoting considerable resources to it.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge the specific and persistent difficulty of long-term unemployment in the highlands and islands? After the exchange that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) had with the Secretary of State, will the Minister bear in mind the great concern that was expressed at a meeting earlier this week of Ross and Cromarty district council about the downturn in the fabrication sector, for example Highlands Fabricators at Nigg and McDermotts at Ardersler, and the huge impact that that is having on the region's economy in terms of the massive increase in unemployment? Would the Minister be willing later in the year to meet representatives of the various public agencies from the area to discuss difficulties that are becoming deeper by the week?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the highlands and islands are always willing to meet, as appropriate, representatives of the agencies concerned. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on achieving objective 1 status for the highlands and islands. The whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on a great achievement for the highlands area.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Is the Minister not ashamed that some of those who are now categorised as long-term unemployed are 16 and 17-year-olds who, despite his claims, have not had a job since they left school? Six days after the Budget, Youth Aid advised the Government that 124,700 young people did not have a job or a training place and that 78 per cent. of them had no money. When will the Minister get his backside off his seat and do something about the real problem for young people in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: Not all young people want a training place. [Interruption.] They may or may not want a training place. We hope that they do. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are training places available for all young people who wish to have training places. Indeed, that is why we improved the quality of the training guarantee by setting time limits within which young people would be guaranteed to receive the offer of a place.

"Investing for Our Future"

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the submissions he received to the Scottish Office consultation paper "Investing for our Future" favoured a system of franchising; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Hector Monro: An analysis of responses to the consultation paper will be made available once a decision on the future structure of water and sewerage services is announced.

Mr. Welsh: The majority of Scots, including leading Conservatives, are totally opposed to any form of water privatisation. It is strange that not one Scottish Minister has defended any privatisation policy in Scotland. Will the privatisation of water simply be bundled in with equally unacceptable gerrymandering and destruction of Scotland's local government system? Will there be separate announcements or will the Minister simply present a single large insult to the Scottish people?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see and contain himself for a few days, or even a week or two longer. He is a glutton for punishment on water. Month by month, he asked questions about water at the same time as his party and his leader made totally irresponsible statements aboout civil disobedience relative to water, and he' should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly anxious to find out about the number of submissions to make a political point. Will my hon. Friend share with the House the number of submissions that he has received that support the option of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), which is for wilful acts of sabotage and violence throughout Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: I have not had one letter supporting violence, so the SNP is on its own.

Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister return to the original question and tell the House how many submissions he has received?

Sir Hector Monro: As I indicated in my original answer, once all the submissions have been analysed and the announcement has been made, they will be available in the Library.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that top water analyst Robert Miller-Bakewell of Natwest Securities is advising his corporate clients that they can buy franchises in Scottish Water in early 1995? Is it not a scandal that financiers in the City are informed of these matters before either Parliament or the people concerned? Will he confirm that up to 20 per cent. of jobs will go; that 10 English companies, three Spanish companies and one American company will bid and that—[Interruption.] The Minister may not like what is being said but it is factual.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government have selected four business units as the model for reform? Is it not contempt of the House for the Government to behave in such a way? Can we have an apology for the mess that has been created? Will the Minister say when a statement will be made in the House?

Sir Hector Monro: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to apologise to Conservative Members for the irresponsible statements that he has made recently and a mass of statistics that mean nothing at all. I am not especially interested in the report from Natwest Securities. We will wait and see what happens when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announces what we intend to do.

Industry

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss Scottish industry.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on a range of matters concerning Scottish industry. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the STUC on the future of the coal industry in Scotland if and when privatisation takes place? The Scots are worried —I am sure that the country is also worried—that the premature closure of Frances colliery, with the potential loss of 1,000 jobs, is in the offing. I hope that the Minister will support that and the future of Monktonhall colliery in my constituency. Will he give a guarantee that such a meeting will take place and that the whole of the Scottish coalfield will be sold to a consortium of the people whom I represent?

Mr. Stewart: The whole House knows the hon. Gentleman's knowledge and expertise of the industry. He led a delegation to discuss proposals for a separate Scottish coalfield. I can certainly give him an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister

for Energy, who has direct responsibility for these matters, will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others concerned to discuss the future.
So far as Frances colliery is concerned, it continues on a care and maintenance basis by British Coal at a cost to British Coal of £2 million per annum. The hon. Gentleman will know that consultations on the future of Frances are continuing between British Coal and the mining unions at present. If the option to offer the mine to the private sector is pursued, Frances will be advertised in due course and interest sought from independent mine operators.

Voluntary Organisations

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of grants to voluntary organisations from his Department in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Grants paid to voluntary organisations by the Scottish Office in 1992–93 totalled £25·7 million compared with £11·9 million in 1978–79 at constant prices. That represents an increase of 116 per cent. in real terms.

Sir David Knox: That is an impressive increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cost-effective form of public expenditure and that it should be increased wherever appropriate?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely cost effective. We see voluntary organisations as an important third force co-operating with the Government in delivering a broad spectrum of services.
The House will expect me to congratulate my hon. Friend on his knighthood. He has been destined for distinction ever since he became chairman of the West Edinburgh Young Conservatives.

Points of Order

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with regret that I raise this serious point of order with you. It involves the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) as well as a Minister of the Crown, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
At a succession of Scottish Question Times, matters have been raised concerning Monklands district council. They have been raised mainly by the hon. Member for Dover, whom we can disregard because he is held in contempt on both sides of the House.

Hon. Members: 

Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not paint a picturesque story. He must come to his point of order, with which I can then deal.

Mr. Hogg: I would find it difficult to paint a picturesque story about the hon. Member for Dover.

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now come to the point of order that he is putting to me, as Speaker of this House?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Dover and, this afternoon, the hon. Member for Colne Valley have made allegations of corruption against an individual in Monklands district council and against that authority. When the matter was initially raised by the hon. Member for Dover, the Secretary of State answered in general terms, saying that he had powers in statute permitting him to pursue any corruption that arose in any Scottish local authority.
This afternoon, that unsubstantiated allegation was used in an attempted smear against my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Conservative Back Benchers have made a deliberate and contemptible attempt to implicate them in an alleged corruption. As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office have not identified that corruption or acted on their statutory powers, it is obvious that that corruption does not exist. If it exists, the Secretary of State must act on it. Instead, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood, joined in that smearing ploy and behaved in a fashion that is inconsistent with what the Scottish people expect of a Minister.
If allegations of corruption are to be made in this House, and if attempts are to be made to smear a Privy Councillor—the Leader of the Opposition—and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, we are entitled to believe that those matters will be properly looked into. However, if the Secretary of State will not do that—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. George Galloway: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Galloway: Yes, Madam Speaker. It deals with the associated question on the Order Paper tabled by the hon. Member for Colne Valley in which he explicitly uses the words
corruption in local government in Scotland
In the House—on the Order Paper—I too have accused someone of being corrupt. That was the late Robert Maxwell—I was ahead of the pack in doing so before he died—and he was indeed corrupt, as the world now knows. The difference is—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Did you receive any of his money?"] No, I never received any of his money.
The difference is that I was ready to, and did, repeat my allegations outside the privilege of the House. The record will show in the morning that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) referred to "dubious business deals" with his own council by the leader of the Monklands district authority—whom I do not know and have never met.
I do know, however, that that person is currently involved in litigation against at least one newspaper, which also made that allegation. The matter is sub judice, yet the allegation was casually repeated by the hon. Member for Colne Valley, both on the Order Paper and in his question.
There must be a role for you, Madam Speaker, in preventing Scottish Question Time from being used as a subterfuge to smear leading Members of the House of Commons and elected local authority members—against whom, as far as I know, the police have raised no complaint, and whose activities are not the subject of any legal action by the authorities who have the power to prosecute in the case of any impropriety. For a Minister to the Crown to be associated today, for the first time, with that smear is an absolute scandal, a disgrace and an abuse of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Pay your debts.

Mr. Riddick: Have you passed your driving test yet?
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) accused me of accusing the Leader of the Opposition of corruption—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did; the Official Report will show that.
I must make it clear that not once in my question did I accuse the Leader of the Opposition of corruption. I did, however, express a desire for him to make some comment about the corruption that has taken place in Monklands district council.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order relate to this matter? I think that I can now deal with it. We have heard enough points of order; we are all aware of the problem.

Mr. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I am a regular attender at Scottish Question Time.

Madam Speaker: So am I.

Mr. Martin: I regularly hear, particularly from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), accusations concerning a local authority. Many of the people in that local authority are decent. hard-working people who do not have an opportunity to reply to allegations made in the House.
Would it not be better, and bring matters to a head, if you, Madam Speaker, were to advise the hon. Member for Dover to repeat the accusations outside the House? That would give the people of Monklands an opportunity to take the hon. Gentleman through the due legal process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough, and I think I can deal with the matter. As the House knows, I rule out of order at the time anything I hear that is out of order. I heard nothing that was out of order during Question Time, otherwise I would have taken action. I do, however, caution hon. Members that moderation is a characteristic of parliamentary language, and I must confess that I have not heard much moderation this afternoon. I ask all hon. Members to remember in future what "Erskine May" says about good temper and moderation being the characteristics of parliamentary language.
The sub judice rule, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), applies only if a case has been set down for hearing. I do not think that that has happened in this case.
We are now in July, and I remind all hon. Members that moderation and tolerance are what we require.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Scottish Question Time today was dominated by two topics: the reform of local government in Scotland, and water privatisation. When we asked questions about local government reform we were told to wait and see. Over a week ago there was a leak to a Scottish newspaper and the story has been running in Scotland for that time. When we asked questions about water privatisation we were also told to wait to see, but a NatWest securities publication suggests that there has been another leak from the Scottish Office.
Will you, Madam Speaker, rule on the increasingly common Scottish Office practice of making statements outside the House and not having the courtesy to -make them in the House? It is treating the House with contempt.

Madam Speaker: The entire House knows that I feel that when any Department has a statement to make on a change of policy the House should be told in the first place.

BILL PRESENTED

YOUTH SERVICES

Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Don Foster. Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mrs. Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to youth services in the community and participation by youth in community development; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 October 1993, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]

Right to Silence (Amendment)

Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow judges, magistrates and juries to draw an inference from a suspect's exercise of the right to silence.
I am grateful for this opportunity to present a Bill that would allow magistrates, judges and juries to draw an inference from a defendant's use of the right to silence. In ordinary life the way in which a person responds to an allegation made against him may be indicative of his guilt or innocence. In a criminal trial the situation is artificial since the right to silence means that an accused person need not respond at all, either when asked questions by the police or at his trial, and no adverse conclusion is allowed to be drawn from his silence. Is it not a mistake to have evolved a system in which too often the advice from the solicitor when he arrives, albeit quite properly given, can be to say nothing at all?
Jeremy Bentham put it succinctly when he wrote:
If all criminals of every class had assembled and framed a system after their own wishes, is not this the first rule which they would have established for their security? Innocence never takes advantage of it: innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence".
It is worth noting that Jeremy Bentham wrote those words in the 18th century, before the advent of legal aid, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and a succession of Criminal Justice Acts which, however well meaning, in the eyes of many have weighted the scales of justice in favour of the defence.
This has been brought about by honest attempts to avoid certain well publicised miscarriages of justice. The balance should be restored and we should recognise that a guilty man walking free from a court is just as serious a miscarriage of justice as an innocent man being found guilty. In my view, the numbers of the former are greatly exceeded by the instances of the latter.
However strong my wish to go some way to restoring this balance through the Bill, I would not wish to move away from the central principle that the prosecution must prove its case and that it is not for the accused to prove his innocence. No man or woman should be forced to speak and nor should silence per se be treated as evidence of guilt. However, the Bill would provide for silence to be treated as corroborative evidence pointing to guilt.
I make no apology for saying that the Bill is primarily designed to free the hands of our police, men and women, as they go into battle on our behalf against a small number of hardened and habitual criminals who know how to work the system. If suspects can avoid having to explain themselves, it is not too difficult to see why over-zealous police officers might be tempted from time to time to invent evidence against someone who they believe is guilty or to place undue pressure to extract a confession which, of course, is admissible evidence at a trial.
The police service is charged with responsibility for investigating offences. In recent years, society has rightly placed increasing demands on the standards that it expects of our police in their detection of crime and in the bringing of safe and successful prosecutions. However, we have overlooked the fact that, if their duty is to investigate effectively, the police need to try to establish exactly what did or did not happen in the situation that led to the suspect's arrest.
It is the view of many of our best police officers, such as Detective Sergeant Cole and Detective Constable Goodwill, who are based at Saltburn in my constituency and whose comments on the frustrations they have experienced on the front line of the battle against crime first inspired me to bring forward the Bill, that a significant number of suspects, by refusing to answer questions, seriously impede the efforts of the investigators to fulfil their function of establishing the facts of the case and, as a result, greatly increase the chances of miscarriages of justice.
It is also correct that there should be safeguards for suspects so that they are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities. First and foremost, I suggest that the caution should be amended to read, "Do you wish to make. any explanation or answer? If you do not say anything, your failure to do so may be held against you at your trial. Anything you do say will be recorded immediately." That caution will he used in conjunction with the already extensive provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which might be extended still further to allow suspects who are emotionally upset the opportunity to postpone an interview. Suspects may already ask for a second interview if they wish to react or modify anything said earlier.
Access to free legal advice is in itself a valuable safeguard, as is the requirement that investigative interviews be recorded under controlled conditions. It could be extended still further by the requirement that all interviews should be video recorded.
Any change in our system would require the development of careful rules as to the guidance the judge should give the jury, as is currently provided for in Northern Ireland where we have already given the court the right to draw inferences from a defendant's use of the right to silence in certain circumstances.
Before people get too carried away with the protection of the right to silence, we should recall that not only do the provisions of the Bill already exist and work well in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—but the duty to disclose information and answer questions to bodies such as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise has already been imposed by statute.
The Financial. Services Act 1987 and the Companies Act 1985 give inspectors the power to compel a defendant to answer their questions, with failure to answer leading to a prosecution and resulting in up to six months' imprisonment. That such powers are at the disposal of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in economic crimes such as insolvency, bankruptcy and liquidations yet far lesser powers are denied the police investigating crimes such as murder and rape is surely a gaping hypocrisy.
In preparing the Bill for presentation before the House, I hoped that its purpose would be simply to endorse the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. However, it was disappointing that, in a generally encouraging report, the Royal Commission felt able to go only halfway on this vital issue, proposing that a jury should be able to draw an inference from a defendant's use of the right to silence during trial, yet not when being interviewed at a police station.
As a result, the hard core of criminals who are wreaking havoc in our society and who know how to work the

system to their advantage remain free to abuse the right to silence. Therefore, the need for the Bill is greater than ever before, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise to oppose the Bill. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) decided to go ahead with it, given the clear guidance from the Royal Commission yesterday which saw no case for changing the law on the right to silence in pre-trial procedures.
The House should remember why the Royal Commission was set up. The first argument was alarm at a small number of serious miscarriages of justice and the failure of senior judges and police officers to address the problems. History will recall that a small group of lawyers, judges and senior police officers, by repeated attempts to cover up miscarriages of justice, caused major problems for the legal system, doing the police a great disservice.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise a judge?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Member is speaking very generally.

Mr. Bennett: I am well aware that, if I wanted to criticise a judge by name, I would have to do it by motion. I can assure the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, as has just been shown, as long as I refer simply to judges, I am perfectly in order. I stress that that small group of people did the criminal justice system in this country a great disservice.
The second reason for the inquiry was the rising tide of crime. It is clear that when the Royal Commission was taking evidence, a small group of people, possibly some of those who had brought the system into disrepute, together with the Director of Public Prosecutions and one or two others, set about trying to change the agenda from the rising level of crime and the miscarriages of justice.
They were trying to suggest that there is a different problem in this country, and that we should be concerned not about the 200 or 300 people who may wrongly be in prison, but that emphasis should be placed on the idea that there were many guilty people who walk free from the courts. In fact, there is no evidence for that. The real problem is that the majority of guilty people are never brought before the courts. That is the most important point that we should address.
The idea that we should remove the right to trial by jury, introduce proposals for plea bargaining and end the right to silence is extremely damaging. I am sorry that the Royal Commission went any way towards that. We should get back firmly to the basic principle that the right to silence has been an important part of the British legal system for many years. That principle was fought for by people such as John Lilhurn, a leveller, back in the Stuart period. With the abolition of the star chamber court, it was beginning to be enshrined in British law by about 1641 and was finally enshrined in English law in 1848. We should be proud of the right to silence and we should protect it.
The problem is that, in recent years, the emphasis has been to encourage the police to spend all their time questioning suspects and nothing like as much time trying to catch people, especially trying to catch them
red-handed. The emphasis has been on questioning, and not on trying to obtain collaborative evidence. That is extremely worrying.
The problems of questioning are well illustrated in the House every day at Question Time. One builds up frustration and confrontation is created. The more we encourage the police to emphasise questioning, the more likely we are to produce miscarriages of justice. People are persuaded that they must answer and that can be dangerous. Ministers at the Dispatch Box do not have a right to silence. but they appear to exercise the right not to answer the questions and Opposition Members get more and more angry.
It is important that we try to get away from the pressure to produce confessions and that we accept that, sadly, if there is too much pressure, we get false confessions. Police officers say that if innocent people have not committed a crime, they have nothing to hide, so why should they not answer questions? We are all aware that on many occasions people do not want to answer questions, not because they have committed a crime, but because it may be embarrassing to someone else to reveal exactly what they were doing. That may not be particularly honest, but it is not criminal. So we should not force people to have to disclose to a police officer what they were doing when they may have been doing something perfectly innocent.
We know that if we put pressure on people to say what they were doing, they assume that they have to answer. If hon. Members think back to what they were doing a week or a fortnight ago, they will remember some things very accurately. However, on many occasions they will not be able to remember accurately and the correct answer to give to a police officer is, "I cannot remember what I was doing." If the prosecution is allowed to draw an inference from the fact that someone's memory is not good, that will count against the accused person just as much as if he had committed a misdemeanour. A good officer knows that if someone says, "I cannot remember," it may be a much more truthful answer than that of someone who can slickly describe exactly what he was doing.
The Bill would be extremely damaging. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh suggested that we should be very concerned about guilty people being acquitted. I agree. But I do not put that on a par with the conviction of innocent people, which is a double offence because an innocent person has been convicted but the guilty person has gone free.
We should not narrow the rights of the individual but should ensure that more criminals are caught. I appeal to the House to throw out the Bill at this early stage and to make it quite clear that we want to keep the constitutional right to silence.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes, 68, Noes 121.

Division No. 322]
[3.55 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butcher, John


Alton, David
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry





Dover, Den
Mills, Iain


Duncan, Alan
Moate, Sir Roger


Dunn, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Durant, Sir Anthony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fabricant, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rathbone, Tim


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Fry, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gallie, Phil
Sims, Roger


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gill, Christopher
Speed, Sir Keith


Gorst, John
Spink, Dr Robert


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Spring, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Sweeney, Walter


Hawksley, Warren
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Heald, Oliver
Thomason, Roy


Hendry, Charles
Trimble, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (North
Waterson, Nigel


Norfolk)
Watts, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John


Jessel, Toby



Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfedder, Sir James
Mr. Michael Stephen and Mr. James Clappison.


Lidington, David



Maginnis, Ken





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Ainger, Nick
Hoyle, Doug


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashton, Joe
Hutton, John


Bayley, Hugh
Illsley, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Janner, Greville


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim
Keen, Alan


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clapham, Michael
Leighton, Ron


Coffey, Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Corston, Ms Jean
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Galloway, George
Maxton, John


Garrett, John
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Graham, Thomas
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Purchase, Ken
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Rendel, David
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Spellar, John



Steel. Rt Hon Sir David

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 6 July]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 2

INITIAL DRAWING UP OF THE. NEW CONSTITUENCIES

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 24, at end add—
'(7) The Committees shall have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act before determining their final report to the Secretary of State.'
This amendment concerns the issue of a public inquiry as part of the process of redrawing the European parliamentary boundaries. On Second Reading the major concern on both sides of the House was the absence of a proper time or mechanism for a public inquiry. Public inquiries, as we know, are the usual procedure when redrawing either the Westminster or the European boundaries. The purpose of the amendment is to raise the subject of the power to hold an inquiry. The means may be open to debate, but the amendment promotes discussion as to whether there should he, and whether it is feasible to have, a time for proper public inquiries.
The other cause for concern on Second Reading was that a special committee would redraw the boundaries, rather than the Boundary Commission. The Government, however, moved a considerable way to allay fears about the nature of the committee. They have undertaken to appoint boundary commissioners where possible, or, if they are appointing new people to serve on the special committee to draw up the boundaries, to appoint committee members on the same terms, and after similar consultation with other parties, as boundary commis-sioners.
The Government have also undertaken that the committee should have the same secretariat and staff as the Boundary Commission and that its independence should be guaranteed. So, as the Minister said when replying to the Second Reading debate, it will be the Boundary Commission in all but name.
One objection has been catered for, but the powers of the committee will still not include the power to hold a proper public inquiry. The history of the matter is as follows. In December 1978, the first boundaries were drawn up for direct European parliamentary elections. It is true that there was no inquiry then; that was the only other time when there has been no timetable for a public inquiry when parliamentary boundaries have been redrawn. However, exceptional circumstances gave rise to that exceptional state of affairs.
First, the process necessarily had to be carried out at the last minute because there had been tremendous disagreement in the House, and the procedure and the timetable came at the end of what I understand was an acrimonious debate about whether there should be direct elections to the European Parliament at all. Secondly, at that time all the boundaries had to be drawn for the first
time. We were dealing not with six additional seats. as we are here, but with all the European seats, for which boundary inquires would have had to be held. Everything was being done for the first time, so the administrative and procedural difficulties were necessarily all the greater.
Thirdly, the European Parliament had less power then than now—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary does not seem to consider that a matter of consequence, but I think that it is. The more power the European Parliament has the more important it is to maintain a proper procedure for drawing up the boundaries. Finally, the Home Secretary of the day gave a firm promise that the process that had excluded the possibility of holding public inquiries would never happen again.
Now let us move forward to March 1984, when the boundaries were changed again before the June 1984 elections. Many more boundaries were altered then than must be altered now. Having done some research on the subject, I can say that even though the timetable was held back until March 1984, about 10 inquiries were held, nine in England and one in Wales, as I understand—perhaps the Home Secretary will comment on that later. Although the timetable are pressing, 10 inquiries were still held, and I understand that 10 is about the maximum number that would have to be held now.
I agree that it was unsatisfactory that the process had to wait until March 1984, but at least it was proved then that such a time scale is not entirely impossible, and we are now considering a more favourable time scale. I also point out to the Home Secretary that, at the conclusion of the process in March 1984, about half the boundaries that had been the subject of a public inquiry were changed, so the inquiries made a difference to the outcome.
Furthermore, moving to the other part of the history of the matter, it is right to say that the timetable is so pressing now only because of the delay in introducing the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, the moment that it was announced following the European summit that six extra seats were to be allocated, we immediately asked the Home Secretary of the day what the procedure for drawing the boundaries would be.
The question was constantly raised from that time onwards, yet the Government are now relying on their own delay as a reason for defeating what would otherwise be the normal process for drawing the boundaries. That delay has stretched over many more months than was necessary. Therefore, if there is any possibility of securing sufficient time for a public inquiry to be held, the onus is all the heavier on the Government to try to achieve that.
Of course, the present Home Secretary was not responsible for the delay and I understand his problem. As, by the means that I have already explained, he has guaranteed the independence of the Boundary Commission, I do not challenge his good faith; I assume that he genuinely believes that public inquiries cannot be held in the time available. However, I do not think that the House would consider it right merely to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that the timetable does not allow for public inquiries. Rightly, people would like that proposition to be tested and shown to be right before accepting it.
In normal circumstances, as I believe that the Home Secretary concedes, public inquiries should and would be held. Therefore, only if he can show that the circumstances are wholly exceptional and exclude the practical possibility of a public inquiry will he have proved that one should not

be held. To test the assertion that that is not a feasible proposition, we must compare the differing time scales that have been drawn up by the Home Office and by the Opposition. It is worth explaining how those time differences occur so that we can test whether it is feasible to have a public inquiry in the way in which we suggest.
4.15 pm
In essence, the Home Office time scale says that, in the event of a public inquiry, the process of boundary redistribution could not be completed until the end of January—earlier than March 1994, but I accept that it would be wholly exceptional to go that far. Using the Opposition time scale, including a public inquiry, the process would end in mid-December. In effect, there is a seven-week difference between the Home Office calculation and the Opposition calculation. I shall explain where that seven-week difference arises.
The timetables of the Home Office and the Opposition are the same up to week five of the process of boundary redistribution—up to the publication in early August of the provisional recommendations. In normal circumstances, there is then a statutory requirement to provide at least four weeks for representations and objections to be made. However, that period falls during the summer, so it is not unreasonable to allow a longer time for representations to be heard; so we have allowed six weeks, whereas the Home Office has allowed seven.
I cannot see why six weeks is not enough. On our time scale, the final date for representations would stretch well into late September and I cannot see why that is too onerous a burden to carry. I must stress throughout that the final time scale adopted would be agreed by all parties. Therefore, it would ill behove parties making representations to complain that they had not had enough time. That area is where the Opposition proposal loses one week.
Both the Home Office and the Opposition allow one week to consider representations, so the time scales match on that issue. Depending on the representations received, if the trigger of 500 protesting electors occurs, a public inquiry should be held. The decision to call a public inquiry depends on the representations, so when the committee meets to consider and decide on the representations, it will then be in a position to know whether to hold a public inquiry or not.
The Opposition time scale allows a further week for the committee to complete the administrative process of issuing the notice of the inquiry, but the Home Office allows two weeks. Again, there is one week's difference between the time scales suggested. I cannot understand why, when it is decided that an inquiry is needed, it cannot be called straight away.
The main gap occurs in the notice given for the public inquiry. We allow four weeks and the Government allow six weeks. I cannot understand for the life of me why that notice cannot be given in four weeks. Four weeks' notice of a public inquiry seems to be easily long enough and I cannot believe that, for the sake of an extra two weeks, it is worth jeopardising the whole process of a public inquiry. If all parties agree that that is a fair and reasonable notice of time, it seems to be fair enough. I agree, however, that for Westminster seats, the period of notice is normally six weeks, not four, but in the exceptional circumstances of this case, it would not be unreasonable if we were all to agree that it should be four weeks rather than six.
That leaves a four-week gap between the Home Office and Opposition time scales. If the process is completed one month later on the Home Office scale, it will go beyond Christmas, taking an additional three weeks, making seven weeks in all.
I appreciate that the details are difficult to follow. However, I have been through the matter carefully and genuinely to see whether our time scale was so unreasonable that it would mean that public inquiries were impossible. I am totally convinced that the time scale is possible if we decide that it is necessary. If, as I believe, public inquiries are an important part of the process and make a difference, if it can be done, it should be done, and I believe that I have shown by our time scale that it could be done.
One final objection is then given. It is said, not unreasonably, that there might be an unforeseen event affecting the holding of the public inquiry. The commissioner might fall ill or the council building in which the inquiry was to be held might become unavailable. There could be all sorts of reasons why, in the particular case of a particular inquiry, it became impossible to meet the timetable. As I understand it, of the 10 inquiries in 1984, not one was postponed.
However, let us assume for the purposes of argument that postponement was possible due to an unforeseen event. Even on our time scale, that could be allowed for. By early December, we have completed the process, so it allows an extra couple of weeks to run up to the Christmas period. Let us suppose that one or two inquiries went into January. I cannot believe that that is of such massive importance to the ability to fight the European elections effectively that it justifies vitiating the entire exercise of public inquiries for all the seats.
I do not overstate the case because I do not accuse the Home Secretary of malice. I simply say that the Home Office has been obstinate. I do not believe that under the proposed time scale it would be impossible to fulfil the requirement for a public inquiry. The amendment is phrased in general terms. We say that we should simply "have regard" to the paragraph in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 which allows for a public inquiry.
I do not stand by the precise terms of a detailed amendment. However, I do say that we should uphold the principle that public inquiries are an integral part of redrawing constituency boundaries, either for Westminster or for the European Parliament. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that we should accept that public inquiries should be excluded. The onus is on the Home Office to show that public inquiries should be excluded. It has failed to do so and in the absence of its ability to convince us that public inquiries are unnecessary, the House should support the amendment and should make the Home Office face up to its responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I rise at this early stage in the debate to make clear the Government's position on the matter. The amendment seeks to draw the constituency committees' attention to the requirements of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 concerning the holding of public inquiries.
As I explained to the House on Second Reading, I want the committees to follow as closely as possible the procedures of the Boundary Commissions. That is why, as

the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) conceded, we have sought—and, I hope, will largely succeed—in terms of the composition of the committees for which provision is made in the Bill, to appoint boundary commissioners where it is possible and where it is not, to follow procedures that mirror closely those that we should follow if we were appointing boundary commissioners.
I share with the Committee the latest information on the issue because it demonstrates the extent to which we are serious in our desire to follow those procedures wherever we can. Both the Boundary Commission members for Wales have agreed to take on the task and to serve on the committee for Wales. Although at present no deputy chairman has been appointed for the Welsh Boundary Commission, a nominee has now been agreed with the leaders of the parties.
I expect my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to make an announcement on the matter shortly. The judge who has been nominated has agreed to he chairman of the committee. I expect the position in Wales to be that all three members of the committee will be members of the Boundary Commission for Wales.
For England, progress has not been quite as satisfactory. The deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission for England is too committed to other duties to take on the task. One of the other members has said to me that he is willing to take part as long as the review is completed by Christmas. The other member is willing in principle, but wants to know more about what is involved and especially about the outcome of our deliberations today before making a firm commitment.
We will be making progress in England also. I hope and expect to appoint at least one member of the Boundary Commission for England, and perferably two, as members of the committee. But that, as will be apparent from what I have said, depends on the outcome of our deliberations today. If the Government were obliged, as a result of the Committee's deliberations, to hold a public inquiry, at least one and possibly two members of the Boundary Commission for England would be unable to become members of the committee.
I have dealt with the composition of the committees and I have demonstrated the Government's desire to follow the procedures of the Boundary Commission as closely as possible. I should like to adopt procedures that would mirror those of the Boundary Commission in other respects.
The one respect in which I feel obliged to ask the committees to depart from those procedures is the holding of public inquiries. There will still be a full opportunity for individuals to make their views known to the committees, and for those views to be taken fully into account. There will be a full opportunity for the committees to modify their original recommendations and proposals in the light of those views.
However, one element of the Boundary Commissions' normal procedures that would be absent would be the holding of public inquiries. The reason for that absence is simply that I do not believe that we could guarantee that the procedures would be concluded in the time available if public inquiries were held.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it correct that, once a public inquiry has begun, it is entirely up to that inquiry how long it continues to hear evidence and deliberate? Am


I right in saying that there is an open-ended commitment once an inquiry has been set up, or is there some way of limiting the length of the inquiry?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has asked a question which goes to the heart of the matter. In a very real sense, a public inquiry is an open-ended process. Of course, the chairman of the inquiry has a certain limited discretion to rule repetitious representations out of order. But there is no limit to the ingenuity—I know from my experience in such matters—with which those who are determined to make representations to public inquiries frame them in a way that differs to some extent from similar representations that may have been heard earlier in that inquiry.
It is difficult and, in the end, impossible to put a time limit on a public inquiry. My hon. Friend is right to say that a public inquiry is an open-ended process.

Mr. Blair: I am sure that the Home Secretary would not wish unduly to build up the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us of any individual inquiries that have lasted more than one or two weeks?

Mr. Howard: It is commonly known that public inquiries—although not necessarily in the subject that we are discussing—that were expected to last for a matter of days have frequently lasted for a matter of months. The same procedure could apply in the matters that we are discussing.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield suggests that we can totally exclude the possibility of something happening in the future because it has not happened in precisely that way in the past, that seems to be an eccentric way of dealing with matters.
We have a serious question to deal with. It turns on whether we are prepared to run risks. I put the matter before the Committee not on the basis that it is absolutely and utterly impossible that public inquiries could be held within what is regarded by all hon. Members as a desirable time scale. We might be lucky. It might be possible. Everything might run like clockwork. The inquiries might not need to be held or, if they did, they might be completed in a short time.
It is not the Government's position that the procedures that are urged on us are necessarily and definitely impossible to achieve. However, we cannot be certain that the procedures would be achieved. Indeed, the better view that I have is that they would not be achieved. I freely concede that that involves an element of judgment. But it does not require an element of judgment to recognise that, whatever view one takes of the matter, one must accept the possibility that the process will not be concluded within the relevant time scale and that, as a consequence, Britain will be unable to take up our extra seats in the European Parliament.
That recognition is independent of judgment. That is what the hon. Member for Sedgefield and his right hon. and hon. Friends have to face and have refused to lace. That is the bottom line which has to inform our deliberations.

Mr. Blair: I agree that one must make a sensible judgment of the risk, but let us make the matter absolutely clear. As I understand it, there is no difference between us, on our time scales, about the likely run of the public

inquiry. So the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not valid. Other things may elongate the inquiry, but deliberate delay is not one of them.
It may well be the case that public inquiries of a general nature such as planning inquiries are supposed to last days but last months. But I can think of no justification for imagining that constituency boundary inquiries will run beyond the time that they have always run.

Mr. Howard: I am astonished at the innocence of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that we agree on the likely duration of the public inquiries. That is not the point. The point is that what we regard as the likely duration may not, in the event, turn out to be the actual duration.
It does not strike me as outside the realms of possibility that we might face a sustained and deliberate attempt to obstruct and delay the whole process. We might well face a concerted attempt—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: From that lot behind me.

Mr. Howard: I do not join my hon. Friend in identifying any particular source, but it is perfectly possible to envisage a sustained and deliberate attempt to obstruct and delay the process. We would then be unable to complete the procedures within the time available.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: First, can the Secretary of State cite any example of a Boundary Commission public inquiry that lasted longer than the time frame that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) identified? Secondly, given that the procedure that the Government have put before us is entirely novel, why is it not possible to include in it a limit on the length of time that the public inquiry could take?

Mr. Howard: I have dealt with the first question. It was precisely identical to that asked by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and I answered it.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not.

Mr. Howard: I answered the question fully. I told the Committee that, if the hon. Gentleman was prepared to proceed on the basis that, because something had not happened in exactly the same way in the past, one could safely assume that it would never happen in the future, his approach to the decision-making process struck me as eccentric.
In answer to the second question, I am not aware of any attempt that has been made to set a time limit on the public inquiry process. It would lead to great difficulties in practice. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has suggested something different. He suggests putting a time limit on the whole process, not merely on the public inquiry, and requiring public inquiries, if they are held, to be completed within that overall time limit. That gives rise to different difficulties, which I am perfectly prepared to deal with if I am pressed to do so.
Before I began to accept interventions, I was about to deal with the amendment. We know what it purports to achieve, but it does not achieve it. Although its defect is capable of being remedied, it is important that I explain.
The amendment says:
The Committee shall have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act.
It is not easy to see what the term "have regard to" means in that context. Sub-paragraph (1) is an optional provision about local inquiries. Sub-paragraph (2) is a mandatory provision, which triggers local inquiries if demanded by 500 electors or a local authority. Sub-paragraph (3) gives a Boundary Commission discretion to hold further local inquiries.
We know that the hon. Gentleman does not intend the third of those provisions, but in so far as we understand what he seeks to achieve, as he has explained it this afternoon, I have to tell him that his amendment would not achieve it.
Let me deal with the timetable that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. On the whole, he has summarised accurately and fairly. I do not take issue with the difference between his timetable and the one that I think more likely. On the basis of the judgment that I have reached and the advice that I have given, my view is that his timetable is unrealistic.
One has to give proper time to allow for representations objecting to the committees' proposals. It is only fair to give local authorities proper opportunity to meet to discuss the proposals and submit them to the committees. It would be difficult for local authorities to achieve that during August. Therefore, we must allow them sufficient time in September.
The time that the hon. Gentleman's timetable allows is too short. If public inquiries were to be held, that would take much longer. That point was made to me by the English boundary commissioners, who believe that the hon. Gentleman's timetable which involves finishing the task with public inquiries by 9 December, is unrealistic. It would be impossible to do justice to the task in the time proposed. In their experience—they are the repository of experience in these matters—the inquiries tend to add substantially to the length of the process.
First, the committee has to consider carefully whether an inquiry is warranted; secondly, it has to give adequate notice of the inquiry to enable people to prepare the information that they wish to represent. That takes us a week behind the hon. Gentleman's timetable. That is based on the judgment that the process will take not fewer than nine weeks overall: two weeks for the committees to decide whether inquiries are needed; four weeks for publicising them; and three weeks for conducting all the inquiries. The practice of the Boundary Commission is to organise public inquiries some months in advance to allow people wishing to attend to prepare themselves properly.
Even within those nine weeks, the setting up of inquiries is not a simple task. Finding a suitable venue can present considerable difficulties. Finding a senior and appropriately qualified lawyer to preside at the hearing is not necessarily easy. Currently, all the assistant commissioners who are used for Boundary Commission inquiries are heavily committed Queen's Counsel or other senior barristers. There needs to be at least a further two weeks beyond what the hon. Gentleman allows in order to give them adequate notice, for their briefing material to be prepared and for them to study and absorb it.
In addition to the nine weeks required for setting up and conducting the inquiries, it will take considerable time for the committee to consider and act on the reports of the

inquiries. We need to allow for the likelihood that up to 10 inquiries would be needed. The hon. Gentleman's timetable allows only two weeks for the preparation of reports on the inquiries.
It has to be remembered that the people who preside at the inquiries are not employed full-time. They have to fulfil other professional commitments, as well as preparing the detailed reports. When the committees consider the reports, they will need to take into account a number of factors, to study the transcripts and to evaluate the representations received. The hon. Gentleman's timetable allows only two weeks for that process, and that is not adequate.
Bearing in mind the number of inquiries envisaged, at least another three weeks would be required beyond the time set by the hon. Gentleman to allow the committee members to cope with the volume of work that would be generated. Such judgments have led me to the conclusion that the timetable put forward by the hon. Gentleman is unrealistic. I accept that those are matters of judgment. However, none of the differences makes any allowance for the delays and other inhibiting factors that would be beyond the control of either the members of the committee or the Government.
It does not require any great imagination or ingenuity to identify circumstances that would knock the process completely off course. The sudden illness of a committee member or someone appointed to conduct the inquiry would lead to considerable delay. As I said earlier, an inquiry might be prolonged as a result of a deluge of oral representations, whether or not they were part of a concerted and orchestrated campaign. A venue might suddenly no longer be available, for all sorts of reasons. Venues of the necessary kind are not easy to find at short notice. That, again, would lead to considerable delay.

Mr. Blair: One can hypothesise situations in which time scales become impossible—if the Secretary of State were right, virtually any time scale would be impossible to adhere to because of the unforeseen events that might occur. Even if we were to add six weeks on to our time scale, with the worst hypothesis for one or two inquiries, it would take the process to late January. I appreciate that those are matters of judgment and I hope that I am not being unreasonable, but, with the greatest of respect, I cannot understand the judgment that leads the Secretary of State to believe that that is wholly impossible.

Mr. Howard: I have clearly set out my position. The difference between us is some seven weeks. The difficulty that I face is that factors such as those that I have exemplified are not susceptible to any control. It simply is not possible to set a limit on the extent to which they may prolong the process. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that that is the case with any timetable. That is why we have to ensure that we have sufficient leeway to give us the scope to make the assessment that the risk is acceptable.
The essential difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that he speaks—I am not making a simple debating point—from the Opposition Benches and I speak from the Government Benches. I would have responsibility for the process. I have the responsibility for looking at it carefully and ensuring that it is not vulnerable to unforeseen contingencies that could knock the whole process off course.
That is why it is not unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman, sitting where he is, to deal with the matter in terms of likelihoods and predictable events and cutting corners here arid there. However, sitting where I sit, I have to build into the process sufficient leeway and a sufficient margin to give me some assurance that we shall achieve a result that is desired on all sides.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of a result that is desired on all sides. I am not sure that all hon. Members on the Government Benches regard that as a desirable result. Is it not highly probable that, if people can so orchestrate events that they take much longer in the House, if they were given the opportunity to do so in the country at large, we never would get the results in time for elections?

Mr. Howard: I am not certain how entirely helpful is the parallel that my hon. Friend draws, so I hope that she will forgive me if I do not follow her down that road. It is clear that we would be running substantial, and unacceptable, risks.

Mr. Hoon: I have listened to the Home Secretary describing his great weight of responsibility. Given the timetable resulting from the Bill, were those matters in the collective mind of Home Office Ministers for the long period that we have had to wait for the Bill to be presented to the House? The Home Secretary makes a persuasive case about accepting his responsibilities, but were they not the same during the eight months that we waited before the Bill was presented?

Mr. Howard: Yes, of course, those matters were in, the collective mind of the Home Office and of others elsewhere during that period. I cannot pretend that they were uppermost in my mind, but they were under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have faced an exceptionally heavy legislative burden during this Session. For that reason, it has not been possible to bring the proposals to the House before now.
The timetable that I have placed before the Committee is not one which I have drawn up unaided. It has been drawn up by my officials, in consultation with the Boundary Commission. They have taken into account the time that each of the stages in the procedure can realistically be expected to take.
I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment. If I thought it possible to achieve the objective that the amendment sets out, without involving an unacceptable risk to the timetable of the process, I should be much more minded than I am to translate my sympathy into action, but I have a responsibility to ensure that the new constituencies are in place in good time for next year's European parliamentary elections. We could not achieve that without taking an undue and unacceptable risk if we were to accept the holding of public inquiries. For that reason, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I listened with care and interest to the Home Secretary's exposition of his difference with the official Opposition over the amendment. It seemed to boil down to a difference of seven weeks. As many more than seven weeks have elapsed since the problem came to public attention,

he cannot be absolved of responsibility for the imbroglio in which we find ourselves. As he spoke, I was reminded of the Empress Maria-Theresa's attitude to the partition of Poland—the more he wept for the demise of democracy, the more he demanded by way of subtraction from democratic procedures.
We are arguing not just about seven weeks, but about an important principle and issue of natural justice. That principle is summarised in the phrase—no doubt well known to him as a lawyer—"audi alteram partem", meaning that it is appropriate to hear both viewpoints. If all viewpoints are not openly expressed before the Boundary Commission, or this substitute for a commission which he dreamt up, the public cannot be satisfied that proper considerations have been taken into account during the process, or that justice has been done. The Home Secretary's suggestion that he is anxious to stick as far as possible to the Boundary Commission's procedures is a somewhat threadbare assertion if the core of that procedure, the public inquiry, is dispensed with.
It was argued on Second Reading, although not by the Home Secretary today, that this procedure is not wholly unprecedented because a somewhat truncated procedure was accepted by Parliament in 1978 on the recommendation of the then Government. I do not need to go into the historical precedent and the reasons for it. However, it is right to note that, in these matters, precedent is often invoked.

Mr. Howard: Could the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to go into the reasons for that decision have anything to do with the fact that he is the only hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment who was a member of the Government who took that decision?

Mr. Maclennan: It could, but it does not. The historical record would seem remote from today's debate. Although I have a considerable historical interest in what happened on that first occasion when we made arrangements for the election of Members to the European Parliament, it would be wearisome for the Committee if I were to elaborate upon what happened.
The point that I want to make is that precedent is invoked in such matters. It is clear in retrospect that it was unfortunate that that precedent was established then because the Government have prayed it in aid as the reason for proceeding as they have today, just as I fear that they may pray in aid in future the precedent of the measure before us to dispense with what many people would regard as a key part of the process of the fair distribution of seats.
It is not as though this situation is wholly unique. We can anticipate that, in future, there will be alterations in the number of seats consequent upon alterations in the size of the European Community if Scandinavian and eastern European applicants are admitted to the Community. If that happens, we can anticipate that there will be alterations in the composition of the European Parliament. There can be no confident prediction that that will occur at a time which makes it easy for the Government of the day to fit in with the timetable of the Boundary Commission.
In dispensing with the Boundary Commission's procedures, we are setting a dangerous precedent, which can be ameliorated only in the way suggested by the hon.
Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) if we are to avoid a sense of injustice following the process which the Bill encapsulates.
I listened to what the Home Secretary said about his inability to guarantee the conclusion of the procedures if the public inquiry process is included. I am bound to say that his suggested reasons for delay were far-fetched to the point of fancy. It would not be difficult to empower the boundary commissioners—or the committee chairmen as proposed in the Bill—to take steps, in the event of emergencies of the kind adumbrated by the Home Secretary, which would truncate the procedures or ensure that the results were available by a given date. In my opinion, it would be possible to do that in a way that would make it proof against judicial review.
If there was a will, there would be a way. It must be said that the Home Secretary has, from the beginning, made it plain that he had no will or stomach for ensuring that the carve-up of seats was seen to be fair among all parts of the countries affected. From what the Home Secretary has said, it has been almost impossible to divine the serious objections to the proposed timetable.
The Home Secretary said that he has heard from some boundary commissioners that they would find the timetable tight and that it does not conform with previous practice. However, we are not dealing with a situation which can be fitted in nicely with the timetables to which boundary commissioners have worked in the past.
I noted what the Home Secretary said about the fact that some of those who would be participating as counsel in the inquiries are engaged on a part-time basis. It is not entirely clear why that should be an insuperable or even a difficult obstacle. We are not talking about the situation in which there are, by the Home Secretary's own admission, a vast number of inquiries. He suggested that there might be 10. If one cared enough about the democratic process it would be perfectly possible to retain the services of those part-time participants here and now and dispense with them as it became clear that their services were not required.
Many of the professional people whom the Home Secretary referred would regard it as a normal part of their public service to. be engaged and not to do it for pin money. I venture to suggest that the Home Secretary has exaggerated that problem unconvincingly.
I hope that the Committee will have heard the careful way in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield spelt out his proposals. The timetable that he adumbrated is realistic and fair and allows ample time at each of its stages for proper consideration of the proposals by individual members of the public, local authorities and others. If that timetable were implemented, it would be possible to include in the Bill provisions for a public inquiry which would ameliorate provisions which are otherwise quite unacceptable.
The Home Secretary said that the amendment was not drafted so as to achieve its purpose. However, that is almost invariably the case when amendments are drafted by the Opposition or minority parties which do not have the benefit of parliamentary counsel advice. The purpose of the amendment is clear beyond any doubt. If further

refinements are required, the Government have at their resources skilled draftsmen who are perfectly capable of helping Parliament in that respect.
If the proposal of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I and many hon. Members on all sides of the Committee support, is accepted, it would be sensible to write in a measure which is not specifically alluded to in paragraph 5A of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 which the amendment seeks to import into the Bill. That is a power for the boundary commissioners or their chairmen to dispense with or timetable a particular part of a proposal, or to manage the procedures of the commission so as to achieve the objective of concluding the process by the date which is generally agreed to be desirable. I understand that the Government wish that process to be concluded by the end of January or perhaps the end of the year. It would certainly be desirable to achieve that process by the end of the year and I have already indicated that view to the Home Office. We are at one on that matter.
5 pm
In the circumstances, giving the chairmen of the committees, as they are called in the Bill—they are not the Boundary Commission—the duty to present the report by that time would ensure that their role could be discharged without the threat of judicial review invalidating any step in the procedure or making it practically impossible to hold the inquiries at such a key part of the process. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting amendment No. 23 and I hope that the whole Committee will think it right to do so.

Mr. John Biffen: The beginning of the debate was almost an uplifting occasion, with the match between the Dispatch Box eloquence of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the forensic skills of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. None the less, there is some unhappiness because there is no doubt that the absence of a public inquiry is inevitably a factor which vitiates the procedures for the prospective European parliamentary elections.
I should like to be rather more pedestrian and reflect on some of the grubby ways of politics. It is not the fault of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that we find ourselves in this position. We are in this position because a decision, I believe, was taken by the Government that the work of the Boundary Commission on our Westminster constituencies should precede all other considerations.
If one could summon from the murky depths of Cabinet committees and drag into the daylight blinking Ministers who had taken the decision, one would find that they were all among the most communautaire element of the Cabinet. What does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that, when it comes down to domestic consideration against European commitment, domestic consideration wins, and not just by a nose.
I make that good-natured observation because it clears the ground from a certain amount of what otherwise might be make-believe.
It is obviously regrettable that there cannot be public inquiries, but I place some hope upon what my right hon. and learned Friend has asserted about the representations that may take place after the recommendations have been published. I say that in the peculiar context of the review,
it being about the European constituencies and not about the reviews with which we are naturally more familiar and which relate to the Westminster Parliament. Although the Westminster Parliament experiences the most extraordinary consequences and the most unexpected and unwelcome upheavals in boundary designation, there is a very significant factor, which is that council districts may be cannibalised to produce a relatively static parliamentary situation. Great flexibility is available to those who draw the Westminster boundaries to ensure to some extent that there is maximum continuity.
No such factor operates in respect of the European constituencies. No Westminster constituency can be cannibalised to try to bring about greater continuity and stability in the European electoral map. One move, I believe, could have more knock-on consequences right across the European electoral map than we have possibly hitherto considered. If that is true, the possible dislocation or redrafting as a result of the adhesion of the four, five or six extra seats could mean a substantial redrafting of the European seats.
I put that in the context of a very large question mark because I cannot in any sense anticipate the findings of the boundaries committee. However, the very fact that one cannot break up one constituency and allocate it to neighbouring European constituencies deprives us of one factor of bringing about greater stability than would otherwise be the case. That is self-evident, and it means that one has to accept, certainly as a possibility, far greater upheaval from this seemingly relatively simple alteration to our representation in Strasbourg than perhaps we have hitherto assumed. If that is the case, the opportunity for representation, for appeal and for reconsideration is much more powerful.
Clearly, that is a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend will have considered, but it reinforces the point that there must be maximum opportunities for those who are affected to be able to appeal against whatever decision is made. Whether that can be conveyed to those who will administer the process—and that is in itself sufficient—or whether it will necessitate adjustment in the Bill, I know not, but I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to reassure me on that point.

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has dealt in detail with several practicalities for a timetable for public hearings. I begin by examining one aspect of what I hope are the principles involved, particularly against the background of other provisions in the Bill. I invite hon. Members to read the Bill as a whole and then say whether, on balance, they consider that the approach that the Government are recommending is one that we in this country are either used to or expect from a Government dealing with the sensitive issue of the redrawing of boundaries—something that has been regarded as above and beyond party political considerations and has brought great credit to this country for the way in which such issues are resolved.
Read as a whole, the Bill contains an extraordinary set of provisions which, taken together, could be viewed as deeply disturbing. They could be described by someone in the Public Gallery, with recent experience of a totalitarian country, as the product of that kind of approach. I do not say that I would use that expression. Someone who lived in the former Soviet Union might look at the provisions with a somewhat jaundiced eye.
In case Conservative Members consider that I am overstating the case, I invite them to consider the Bill and use the modern term for what we call the Secretary of State or the Home Secretary—"Minister of the Interior". That is, instead of the comforting descriptions that we use—Secretary of State or Home Secretary, to which no one in this country would take exception—we might use the expression "Minister of the Interior". That would produce a different interpretation, particularly of the schedule.
If the "Minister of the Interior" were responsible for the appointment of the members of the various committees and their staff and, in turn, responsible for their terms and conditions and determining their pay, we would be looking at the proposals much more suspiciously. If he were then able to make modifications to the proposals without necessarily referring to a member of the committee—and, indeed, he was able to make further incidental or consequential provisions—we would have some doubts about whether that was the sort of system that we expected from a democratic Government in a democratic society. That is one aspect of the schedule and the way in which the committees are composed.
We would be more disturbed if the provisions were unable to be challenged legally. That is the sort of approach that we expect in totalitarian societies. In such societies, we would expect the Government to introduce proposals that could not be subject to any sort of legal challenge. Of course, that is precisely what we find in the schedule—the recommendations of the committees cannot be challenged in the courts. We have discussed that matter and I listened to the Minister's explanation. His explanation was less than satisfactory, if I can put it that way. In addition, the Bill provides for the committees to be established in advance of Royal Assent. Clause 2(6) provides for the work of the committees to be retrospectively validated.
I mention those points simply to show how someone who perhaps does not clearly understand the intention and motivation of the Government, which I am sure is fair-minded and reasonable, with regard to the proposals might read the Bill and say that it does not have the hallmark of fairness that we would expect in Britain, which is associated with the sensitive subject of the drawing of boundaries.
I mention all of those points not to depart from the amendment but to emphasise a simple point of principle. If the Government say that there is no validity whatever in the argument, a simple way of resolving the problem would be to accept the idea that there should be public involvement in the process, as proposed in the amendment.
There should be proper public consultation and hearings of the sort that we would expect if this were a matter for the boundary commissioners, or a procedure that the Home Secretary described as being "as close as possible to the procedure adopted by the boundary commissioners". The reason for my long introduction is simply to put the matter in the context of the Bill.
The amendment, however it is interpreted, would permit a clear refutation of the argument that somehow or other the Government are being unfair, partial and not necessarily adhering to the spirit of the redrawing of boundaries which has been a characteristic of the House and its work for some considerable time.
I turn to the Home Secretary's arguments about the timetable. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that his


argument was a little slippery with regard to the justification for the Government's difficulties. The Government have known for some eight months that they had to introduce these proposals. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced in terms of the Home Secretary's responsibility to ensure that the procedure is conducted properly and there is not the opportunity for people to disrupt the process and make it last much longer than any conceivable timetable will allow.
Those are perfectly reasonable arguments, and I can understand the Government's fear. However, that needs to be balanced against the fact that the Government have known for some eight months that they had to introduce this Bill. The Home Secretary's arguments would be much more acceptable, and certainly more understandable, if there had been greater urgency on the part of the Government.
It is hard for me to accept—I sat through most days and nights of the Maastricht process—that there are not three days of parliamentary time for the Bill, even allowing for the time that was taken to deal with the Maastricht Bill, and assuming that as many as three days are necessary to complete all of the relevant stages. That argument is a little difficult to accept against that background.
5.15 pm
The argument is more difficult to accept when the Home Secretary shifts his position slightly and slips from one justification to another. He began by saying that it was difficult to follow the various stages that would be required within a reasonable time and then concluded by saying that one of the real difficulties was that the process could be open-ended if people took advantage of the opportunity to frustrate the work of the public inquiries.
I know that the Home Secretary, in a previous incarnation, has had considerable experience of public inquiries. Clearly, some public inquiries have stretched for a considerable time—and much longer than originally envisaged. However, I cannot think of a Boundary Commission public inquiry that has lasted an inordinate amount of time, nor one that has been abused in that way.
Let us assume that, in some part of the country, people took it into their heads to prolong the work of a public inquiry. The Home Secretary knows better than I—and probably better than any other hon. Member—how public inquiries are organised and run, and how those who are responsible for taking evidence organise the work.
With that practical understanding of the process, he knows better than anyone else that whoever is responsible for the organisation of a public inquiry could at the outset set out the opportunities that people would have to give evidence, the time limits that he expected and, if necessary, the sort of sittings that could be arranged if there was any deliberate organised attempt to prolong the proceedings for longer than the timetable proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The Home Secretary knows that the people who are appointed to organise public inquiries are not usually those who will be intimidated by the organised disruption of business. Effectively, he is saying that an organised filibuster might make such public inquiries take longer than to next June, which is clearly the date that we are concerned about. Even if a public hearing ran into May, it

would still be possible to hold public inquiries and allow us to reach a conclusion. I simply invite the Home Secretary to examine that aspect.
The Home Secretary is saying that the Government want the process to be completed towards the end of November, rather than towards the end of December or January, whichever timetable is adopted. As he fairly said, that is a matter of judgment. It is a matter of exercising our minds about what is appropriate. In that context, I simply invite him to consider this question: what difference will that make in practice?
Let us assume that the process is completed by the end of November—I understand that that is roughly the Government's intended timetable. That would mean that, over the Christmas holiday period of late December to early January, we would all know the nature of the European constituency boundaries. That does not seem to add unduly to the advantage that the political parties may gain from the knowledge of the precise organisation of the European constituencies at that stage. It seems to make little difference to the candidates standing in those elections whether the changed boundaries are published in late November, ready for Christmas and the new year, or at the end of December or January.
Having stood in two such elections, I recognise the advantage to the candidates of knowing as early as possible the nature of the boundaries. I do not argue against that and I understand why the Government want them to be published as soon as possible. However, as the Government have waited for eight months, it is difficult to accept that eight more weeks will make a big difference to European constituency organisation and election campaigns fought by the candidates.
Although the constituencies will not be finalised, most candidates will have a good idea of the nature of the constituencies in which they will be campaigning. Hon. Members are as familiar with that process as anyone else. Once the Boundary Commission has produced its proposals, notwithstanding the possibility of a public inquiry, everyone has an idea what the constituencies will be like once the elections take place. That is what we are arguing in terms of the European constituencies.
The committees will make their proposals in August. Whether or not there are procedures for public consultation, those proposals will he known to everyone. The opportunities for changing them will be relatively limited, because, for the time being. most European constituencies contain some eight parliamentary constituencies. The rules will be the same as in the past, whereby entire parliamentary constituencies must fit within European constituency boundaries.
In those circumstances, the possibilities of change will not be so great that candidates will be unduly and adversely affected by a delay of eight weeks in the process, given the fact that we have already waited eight months. It is therefore a little difficult to accept the argument about the timetable.
In the context of a Bill that raises questions in people's minds about the integrity and objectivity of the process of redrawing boundaries, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, so that the Bill can proceed smoothly with widespread acceptance in the House.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument precisely, although he was correct


to remind the House that we should not take our democratic practices for granted. It would be easy to do so as, because we have become accustomed to them, we feel that they can be bent or adjusted according to the exigencies of developing circumstances.
I refer to the interesting words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). I do not share his suspicion of ministerial actions but believe that Ministers have given deep thought to the requirements of these elections, as they do to those of domestic elections. They have planned the process carefully, bearing in mind the outcome that they wish to achieve—fair boundaries for fair elections, which will result in as fair an outcome as possible, representing a variety of political opinions from throughout the country.
Although I regard the Bill with less suspicion than my right hon. Friend, I share with him some qualms about the possibility, although not the probability, of the cannibalisation of Westminster constituencies to make up tidy European parliamentary constituencies. There would be less redrawing of existing seats and less upheaval if a different form of elections were used in the future.

Mr. Biffen: A Westminster seat cannot be cannibalised in the context of European elections. That point was put to me recently by a Member of the European Parliament.

Mr. Rathbone: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification and reassurance. I hope to be able to provide a little more reassurance in a moment.
To achieve what the House and the Government want to achieve requires considerable study and the maximum opportunity for those concerned, at both the receiving and planning ends, to expose their thoughts and have them questioned.
The opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave some reassurance. He described the committee, as it is to be called, that is to be set up for Wales and made up of commissioners. However, there are some serious difficulties in identifying proven commission members for the committee for England. Even if that turned out to the best, it seems to show that there may be a requirement for even greater supervision and review of their conclusions than would normally be the case for a Westminster constituency.
I shall not be tempted to reiterate all the timing problems, as both sides of the argument have been put clearly. However, I conjecture with the House about how our decisions today could affect actions in the future, particularly if at some time in the future a pan-European system of elections were adopted and applied to this country, as it would be applied to all other countries in the European Community. For example, if the additional member system were adopted for this process, the plans that we are now making would affect what was considered then.
I share with hon. Members on both sides of the House a belief that it is a pity that the Government have risked missing the opportunity to adopt the additional member system, because it would be sensible to adopt a system designed for additional members when we are discussing the allocation of additional members. It seems to fit so beautifully tidily and might even let my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary off the hook if it were adopted. There is no difficulty in Wales because Wales is being treated as a single constituency anyway, but it would

require a drawing of constituency boundaries in England to establish the best system, which is regional representation for the five additional seats that are to be given to England.
The basis for that system lies in our economic regions, although there are eight of those so they would have to be adjusted to fit the five seats. There would have to be combinations of areas such as north, Yorkshire and Humberside, north-west and east midlands, east Anglia and east midlands, north-west and the west midlands, the south-west, and the south-east. I shall not attempt at this stage to set out a prescription for that, and there is nothing sacrosanct in any of those divisions.
It would be easy to set up the new Euro-constituencies for an additional member within the constraints so clearly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North. With that possibility in mind, I consider it all the more important that a clear system is set up now, and that we do not create further precedents for the establishment of constituency boundaries in the way that the Government have outlined.
5.30 pm
This is not blue sky dreaming; it is not an impossibility. It is possible that the new requirement will come to pass. It is not a new fad. Our electoral system has developed over the centuries: we have made quantitative reforms, such as broadening the franchise so that men and women have equal voting rights; the voting age was lowered recently and, even more recently, people on holiday or living abroad were allowed to vote. We are not unused to changing our electoral circumstances and methods.
We have even been innovative in terms of qualitative improvements, as can be seen in the electoral arrangements for the European Parliament that have been made in Northern Ireland. Those arrangements establish a better representation of the various divisions in Northern Ireland.
Steps towards further reforms—whether unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government or as part of a pan-European activity—are not inconceivable. There are well-established criteria for such developments.
We want the British system to maintain the current firmly rooted democratic practice of a close relationship between representatives and their constituencies. That would mean a continuation of the current first-past-the-post system of elections for the European Parliament. Subsequently, to allow for national unity and representation of minorities—especially nationally based minorities —additional Members would be added.
The additional seats would encourage broadly based national parties to gain representation in areas where they have sizeable support, although they do not have a majority. There are two very good examples in Scotland, which were raised in the House only yesterday. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party in Scotland do not have proportionate representation in the European Parliament. We want to maintain in this country—as we always have—a simple system, as opposed to the complicated systems of other European countries.
Those points underline, yet again, the possibility—the probability, perhaps—of the adoption of the additional Member system, particularly where additional Members are already being established. That would both increase proportionality and maintain single-Member constituency representation.
It may seem as peculiar for a Conservative to adopt this line today as it seemed yesterday for a hon. Member for a Sussex constituency to be concerned about representation in Scotland, at the other end of the United Kingdom, but it is not as peculiar as it might seem at first. Some change to the electoral system for the European Parliament is inevitable, sooner or later. It would be in British interests, and the Government's interests, to adopt the system best suited to our present and future, and to give the lead and promote it as the best system for Europe. If we do not do that now, we will inevitably have to do it in the future, at a time when political pressures may be much greater.
If we adopted the system now, we would give a good British and Conservative lead to the rest of Europe. We would establish a paternity for reform, which I would be only too pleased to see as part of the action and initiative of my party, Parliament and the country. We would, in the process, show our commitment to constitutional propriety.
I am not being disloyal to the present Government or the present system—although I think that the system could stand improvement—by putting forward these suggestions. In the past, the Tory party has been committed to protecting individual rights and individual responsibilities, and I think that has been at the core of many of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are certainly committed to supporting properly founded constitutional democracy, and that is one of the themes that I have tried to follow.
There is no doubt that the ownership of an equally valid vote—along with the opportunity to cast it effectively—is the essence of freedom and the cornerstone of national confidence, without which we will never recreate and conserve a firmly founded United Kingdom. The fact that precedents have been set in the past suggests that we should eschew the temptation to set a further precedent now, which might be detrimental in the future. It is important to remember that young people will have more to enjoy or endure in the future than most of us—certainly more than people of my own generation.
It is with those questions in mind that I express the hope that Ministers will reconsider the question of public hearings in regard to the drawing of European constituencies. Wider ramifications will be involved in the drawing of those constituencies, not just for now but in the future as Europe, and our position in it, increases.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and I agree with a great deal of what he said. I shall make three or four brief comments, one of which has doubtless been made many times during the debate.
Although this is a very short Bill and the debates have not been massively attended, it is an extremely important Bill; not to put it too pompously, it is part of the fabric of our democracy. It may be only a small part, but it is an extremely important one. I think that we should change the system of our democracy, or any part of it, only with great care and deliberation. That is not an automatically conservative approach, but an approach based on common sense.
The structure of boundaries is a small part of a democracy, but we in this Parliament are increasingly in the habit of sending observers to elections in other parts of the world, either from this Parliament directly or through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the

United Nations. I strongly support that. The intention is to determine whether elections are free and fair, and we must indulge in the exercise with some modesty.

Mr. Rathbone: One other body through which that is done is the Council of Europe.

Mr. Grocott: That is right and in all cases, whatever the auspices, the objective is simple but vital in countries such as Angola and Nigeria, to name but two where the exercise was recently carried out. It has been a revealing experience for many of us because it has told us something about our own democracy. Anyone with some humility and intelligence who examines how things are done in other democracies will start to ask questions about how effectively we operate our own democracy. It is right to ask such questions because many aspects of our democracy bear closer scrutiny. So as not to be ruled out of order, I shall mention just two.
It is most peculiar that in our democreacy the strictest control, based on individual constituencies, is exercised on what candidates can spend. The obvious reason for that is to stop people buying votes. However, there is no control whatever of national expenditure, although we all know that when it comes to the crunch in a general election national considerations primarily determine the outcome. Some hon Members, of whom I am not one because I have lost elections on several occasions, think that the outcome is solely due to the talents of the candidate. However, most of us are honest enough to admit that it has much more to do with national considerations.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend speaks about general election expenses. Does he agree that money spent in Britain on general elections should be raised here and that money raised overseas should play no part?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment.

Mr. Grocott: I am not certain whether my hon. Friend refers to a current example, but I am sure that the principle he has enunciated is right.
My modest observation is that many aspects of our democracy do not stand up in comparison with some other democracies. The other obvious example relates to the first item that we look at when testing whether elections abroad are free and fair—the dissemination of information. People who observe general elections in this country should apply the test of whether there is fairness among the different news outlets in the explanation of party manifestos and objectives. They would be hard pressed to say that it is fair.
Another matter that has emerged, if it has not emerged before from observations of overseas elections, is that our democracy is extremely complicated and includes legislation such as the Bill. Free and fair elections cannot just be achieved on the day by checking that the right people take part. It is about the machinery that is established in the run-up to the election and that can extend over many years. That is what we are debating and it is central to a first-past-the-post system, which I strongly favour and hope that we shall retain for a long time.
There is nothing more central to such a system than the determination of parliamentary boundaries. Although the boundary commissioners will never admit it, the


determination of such boundaries has strong political ramifications as well as all the usual arguments about community of interest.
We should be cautious and acknowledge that when the process is interfered with, for whatever reason, it runs risks. Why are the Government interfering in this normal part of our democratic process? Is it because it has not worked in the past? Like many hon. Members, I have been involved for many years in parliamentary and Boundary Commission inquiries. The system works fairly well and it does not take long.
In Shropshire, the preliminary proposals were presented in September, the inquiry took place earlier this year and the final report is expected quite soon. That is a fairly leisurely pace, but it gave everyone the opportunity to express their views. The public inquiry was relaxed and good and it was a small but essential part of our democratic machinery. There is no reason for tampering with it because there is no suggestion that the procedure is at fault.
5.45 pm
Democracy is a fragile flower. We have to be careful how we tamper with it and we must be especially careful when it is tampered with unilaterally. I was persuaded by some of the speeches by Conservative Members. Is it a good idea for the Government to present such a Bill when concerns have been expressed, especially about the amendment, and to push it through? Presumably the Government will use their majority to do that unilaterally and without the sort of consultation that one would normally expect on such a Bill.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who is my parliamentary neighbour, asked in his usual gentle teasing style what happened after Cabinet committees had operated and Ministers blinked in the light of day. Perhaps I can take his inquiry further. We all know the genesis for the Boundary Commission acceleration nationally, which has been followed by the European Boundary Commission. It is because the Conservative party, mistakenly I am happy to say, believes the national newspapers which say that changes in boundaries will give the party a net gain of 25 to 30 seats. I have never believed that for a moment and history is a little on my side.
There was great agitation about the Boundary Commission recommendation before the 1974 election, which took place in the 1970–74 Parliament. I was not here at the time, but I remember that the newspapers strongly supported the then Conservative Government, no doubt on the ground that when the new boundaries came into operation they would deliver a Conservative victory in February 1974. What happened was unique in British parliamentary history. In the election, Labour did not get as many votes as the Conservatives did, but it won more seats. That is what matters and it resulted in that splendid Labour Government from 1974 to 1979.
The Home Secretary smiles. He was not here at the time. If he had been it would have been a valuable part of his political education. He could have enjoyed with us our legislation to protect workers and to abolish tied cottages and could have witnessed the move towards fairness in education. I fear that I would be out of order if I went further, but I am sure that you, Mr. Lofthouse, are enjoying this as much as I am.
That belief by the newspapers was based on the false premise that a boundary redistribution was always an advantage for the Conservative party. There is bad news for the Conservatives almost by the month. Although I can speak only of areas that I know best, it is predictable that seats will go in city centres. But they will be re-established in the suburbs and the more rural areas as people, many of whom I am happy to say are Labour voters, move to the suburbs and rural areas.
I confidently look forward to Labour Members being returned in many of the seats that have been recommended so far. That will happen at the next general election, and the sooner the better. It is based on a false premise. Labour Members, being altruistic, will not try to rush through boundary changes because we know that they are to our advantage; we believe that they should be based on established democratic procedures which include essentially a proper public inquiry at which everyone who is likely to be affected can make their views known.
It is easy for a Government with a majority, albeit a small one, to say, "This is in our political interests so we will get it through, and it is tough if you are in opposition." It is in the nature of political life and happens often in regard to various pieces of legislation, but it is particularly bad and dangerous when it involves the machinery of our democracy. We tend to be a little pompous about it, particularly in relation to other countries, but it has been established with considerable difficulty and numerous parliamentary battles over a long period.
I urge the House to see the common sense of my hon. Friend's amendment and to ensure that proper democratic public inquiries take place for the European elections.

Mr. Thomas Graham: In principle, we are absolutely correct to support the amendment, as we are in danger of threatening our entire democratic process by removing the public inquiry from any boundary change, especially in Europe.
We are in the throes of discussing local government boundary changes in Scotland. The people of Scotland are not happy with the present lack of consultation. The Government are continually destroying people's rights to be heard and to make democratic observations in the right and proper place and on the right and proper platform.
I remember one of the first public inquiries in which I took part. I am not an academic; I have never professed to be an academic. I have seen how Ministers and Members of Parliament operate in the House of Commons. When they meet someone who asks a complicated question, they say, "Write me a letter," and they never receive that letter. That- is the biggest put-off they can give anybody. How many people out there can write letters to inquiries?
We should consider the rights of our constituents to examine boundary changes. Anyone living in any constituency has the right to be heard. We are not talking about people's right to write an elaborate letter and put everything that they feel into that letter. Many of our constituents do not have the skill to write letters putting their objections. They need the right to a public inquiry so that they can articulate their views, perhaps better than they can write.
My name is not Jeffrey Archer; I am Tommy Graham, a Member of Parliament who came up through the ranks and went to a comprehensive school. I did not go to any fancy university or public school. I had an elementary


education and I have worked at it all my life. I still do not write 50 or 60-page letters. That is not my style; it is not how I operate, nor is it my academic upbringing.
We insult millions of people by not allowing them to take part in the democratic process of a public inquiry. It is an insult to destroy their right to be heard. In a democracy, it is important that we never short-circuit; when we do, we end up with dictators, bad legislation and shoddy workmanship. The Government should never take away people's right to be heard. They cannot expect everyone to sit down and write out their objections.
I represent a constituency which epitomises the solid working-class in Britain. Most people in my constituency do not have work, perhaps as a result of Government policies. I have spoken to folk about many things, and I have fallen into the same trap—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member wishes to ask a question, I am happy to give way.
When folk have come to my surgery with their problems and I have had a big surgery with 20 or 30 folk waiting, I have said, "Maybe you could go home and write to me." I got a blank look, and then I saw the pain that I caused. Now I never ask folk to do that before asking, "Are you all right at letter writing? Do you have any difficulties? If you wish to dictate a letter, we will sit down and work it out."
A public inquiry is a vehicle for vocal expression and that is crucial to democracy. I will continue to elaborate my point so that the Minister will be absolutely clear as to what I am saying. We all know that there are frail, elderly people who may be suffering from some mental or physical problem or an illness that does not allow them to sit down and write an elaborate letter. I do not always ask my constituents to write letters; I give them help and assistance to articulate their views so that they can sign a statement saying exactly what they want and pass it on to the Government.
The Government are now short-circuiting democracy by setting up committees whose members will say that people can write with their representations. However, Mrs. McDonald, a housewife without academic experience, may still wish to make representations about boundaries.
In a famous case in Scotland, a woman took her case to the European Court and won. I see the wee smile on the Minister's face and I am delighted to see that he has some humour. She articulated her case and the court put it on paper.
My demand is not short-circuiting democracy; the Government have short-circuited all kinds of democracy. They do not listen to people. Another way of turning a deaf ear is to make people write.
I plead with the Minister to support our amendment, as it is sensible. If the Government do not support it, they will be getting into the realms of political chicanery and letting the Boundary Commission get away with it. I notice that you are listening closely, Mr. Lofthouse, and I shall stick rigidly to the amendment. The point I am making is relevant to the amendment. It is also relevant to local government in Scotland as the Boundary Commission there will be able to act in the way I have mentioned.
All the boundaries start at distict council level. The wards are made into regional council sets which then are

made into parliamentary seats which are made into European seats. Aspects of local government make it important that the whole process is followed through.
There is no way in which anyone could be denied the right to argue about the geographical location of boundaries in local government. There is no way in which we would accept that we do not have a right to a public inquiry to articulate our arguments about parliamentary boundaries. We would go loopy loo in here if we were denied that right. So why should we accept a situation in which the issue of the European boundaries will not be allowed a full public debate?
Whether they can write letters or not, people have the democratic right to be heard. Everyone has a right to speak and to be listended to, and I hope that the Government will allow them to do that.

6 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for not being present during the Front-Bench speeches. I was asked to comment on the welcome decision of the court to require the Home Secretary to review again the issue of a posthumous pardon for Derek Bentley. I and many others have campaigned for that, so naturally I had to give it some priority. I am pleased that the Home Secretary is here. I hope that he examines the case carefully, because he knows that there is a well of opinion on the side of reviewing the case and granting a posthumous pardon. I will not go further down that road, but that is why I was not able to be present.
I want to comment on the question of public inquiries because it is important. I happen to be a victim of boundary changes. I realise that we are talking about European seats—EC seats. We use the word "European" too sloppily. Europe is a continent and the word should not be used when referring to a group of 12 trading states that are forming an inward-looking block. The issue of public inquiries relates to every decision about a constituency, whether it is a parliamentary seat or the larger—half a million—EC seat. Public inquiries often represent keenly fought arguments and invoke strong feelings in relation to disputes over a decision by a committee about whether an area should be excluded or included.
For nine and a half years I was the Member of Parliament for Keighley. There was a strong argument about whether an area called Ilkley should be included in that constituency. It was widely regarded as an overwhelmingly Conservative area and, since I had a majority of 75, the question whether that area should be included was examined with some concern.
We argued that Bingley should be included. We suggested that, not only on the ground of political advantage, although that is a motivating factor in many people's concern, but because it was a better unit. It was closer to the centre of Keighley and would have made a much more effective political and representative unit, more able to be represented by a Member of Parliament than the seat that was finally decided upon. In those circumstances, Mr. Lofthouse, I am sure that you realise that there were heated debates.
These Common Market seats are difficult and unwieldy. They consist of half a million people at the very least. With that size, it is difficult for people to feel any sort of identity with the person who represents them. The


first-past-the-post system is much more likely to give a sense of identification than the various conundrums that surround proportional representation. Proportional representation is one way of divorcing any sense of identity between the electorate and the representative.
That being the case, the first-past-the-post system is more likely to produce arguments about seats, because individuals are involved. That is one of the reasons why we should have a public inquiry to resolve the committee's recommendations. People representing the areas involved may wish to have some say in the decision on an EEC constituency.

Mr. Rathbone: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments about proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system. If he had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard what I had to say. I am sorry that he was not here, but I am sure that he was busy elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman's blanket condemnation of proportional representative systems does not apply to all those systems. For instance, it does not apply to the additional member system, which maintains constituency representation and has members in addition. So that, there is both proportionality and representation of individual constituencies.

Mr. Cryer: I know that that system was adopted in western Germany and, subsequently, in Germany. It is entirely unsatisfactory because, for example, in Germany 50 per cent. of the members are decided by the additional member system and takes that number of people out of contact with constituencies. In the context or this amendment, it would mean less local feel and the question of public inquiries would not be so important.
The additional member system also places an additional weapon in the hands of the central party apparatchiks. The dissidents of a party are perforce limited to the possibility of being selected in a reduced number of seats where they can be elected and have some independence in the body to which they are elected. The additional members are chosen by virtue of their loyalty or even subservience to the party.
I spent five years in the EC. One of the difficulties involved in dealing with the other parties representing member states in the EC is trying to obtain comments from them. They have to clear everything with central office or the central party apparatchiks. If they do not do so, they are in danger of making a statement that will place them not at No. 10 in the list of additional members, but at No. 1,010. If the Labour party had an additional member system, there are several people who would be a long way down the list. Mercifully, we do not have such a system.

Mr. John Marshall: I was in the European Parliament for twice as long as the hon. Gentleman. I can confirm everything that he has said. In 1984, Mr. Chirac, the leader of the Gaullists, went to a number of people who had been distinguished Members of the European Parliament in the previous five years and said, "You have annoyed me. You will not even be No. 81 on the Gaullist list." The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is quite right because we saw in the European Parliament how that power is misused.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the subject of inquiries. It would be welcome if we were to return to it.

Mr. Cryer: Under a system in which individuals represent constituencies, the question of public inquiries is more important because the issues are more keenly felt. In Holland, the EC pays considerable expenses directly to political parties. If an inquirer applies for information or comments on a case, it is sent to the party and the case is allocated to a Member of the European Parliament on the list. That means that the issue becomes an amorphous blur rather than a Member taking it up on behalf of constituents and building up, he hopes, a certain following. That is difficult to do in a constituency of half a million people, but at least the individual representing the constituency will have the chance to do so.
For example, I took up the case of 200 Sheffield steelworkers who, after they were made redundant, were not given money for retraining that was due to them under the treaty of Paris because Commissioner Manuel Marin was using them as a pawn in negotiations with the Government of the day. I had to lead a campaign to get those workers the money. Those steelworkers would say, "We do not accept the recommendations of the Boundary Commission because they would cut us out of the constituency. We are delighted and satisfied with the representation that we have had and we do not want to be part of the EC constituency."
Under the first-past-the-post system, constituents can say to their Member of Parliament, "What on earth are you doing about this issue?" That is not possible under a list system, because Members are bothered only about staying on the list, which, by and large, is decided not by the electorate but by party apparatchiks. I am opposed to the list system and to proportional representation because the relationship between the member and the constituency is important.
As an MEP, I represented Sheffield steelworkers and tried to get some changes out of Manuel Marin, who was supposed to be a socialist commissioner but who would not recognise socialism if he had it sprayed on his eyeballs; he certainly did not care about Sheffield steelworkers. Under the amendment, if people felt that the Boundary Commission or the proposed committee was mistaken, they could write a letter of complaint or be represented at a public inquiry.
Being represented at a public inquiry is fairly daunting, but there is almost always somebody who will represent a group of people who will have the opportunity to air their views. A public inquiry generates more publicity. Local newspapers attend public inquiries and, if a matter is hotly contested, representatives of local radio and television sometimes turn up, which generates more publicity for the issues that are being enjoined. That is patently a more democratic process, because it is open and an inspector makes recommendations.
6.15 pm
There is a view that the proposed committees are not entirely satisfactory. The Bill is being rushed through. We know that boundary commissioners are appointed by the Government, but they try to gain a reputation for independence. Are the Government establishing committees that will support them or at least that are complacent


and do not have an objective thought? It may be wrong to make that assertion, but it would be easier to discount if the amendment proposing a public inquiry were accepted.
A public inquiry is an open process and it would act as a stop-gap against an allegation that the committees that are being set up fairly rapidly might make a decision politically in favour of the governing party. Every Boundary Commission proposal is accused of being lickspittle subservience to the governing party.
That may be true—on balance, I think that it is untrue —but in Keighley the view then and now was that the commission favoured the Government and handed Keighley on a plate to the Conservative party. Many people simply do not believe the claim that the boundary commissioner was absolutely neutral and that everything was above aboard—and that was with a public inquiry. What will they say about a system that does not offer a stop-gap, whereby people can present their view? Even if people do not accept the decision, at least they will have had the opportunity of putting their point of view to the inspector or presenting papers. It is a much better and more open system than a decision taken in writing behind closed doors.
If the Minister wants to avoid the taint of the accusation of political partiality and prejudice—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It did not happen in Keighley.

Mr. Cryer: We had an open public inquiry in Keighley and people's criticisms, at least on that score, were set at rest. But the fact that people still regard it as gerrymandering shows that prejudice lingers long and that without an inquiry it would linger longer and more fervently. Therefore, would not it be a good idea for the Secretary of State to say, "In order to ensure that the grounds for criticism of political prejudice are absolutely minuscule, the back-stop of a public inquiry has been incorporated and, moreover, we accepted a Labour party amendment in the House of Commons to ensure that we showed beyond peradventure that good will and impartiality are being incorporated in legislation." That is quite important because people should know that decisions of committees are as open and straightforward as possible.
I do not believe that the expense of five extra MEPs is worthwhile, and if the amendment brought the whole thing tumbling down I would not be terribly worried. If, for example, the legislation were not passed and if, as a consequence, no extra people were sent to Strasbourg or the committee rooms at rue Belliard in Brussels or sent on odd journeys to Luxembourg in the labyrinthine consultation process, I would not shed a single tear. In fact, I would cheer, because we would save the taxpayer some money, so much of which is flooding into the silly common agricultural policy which is never improved or changed but merely costs more money. At the same time, I should be able to consider whether the legislation, if it is to be passed, can at least be improved. Although I am opposed to the concept, it might as well be amended and improved.
The Labour party's amendment would mean that a public inquiry would be held. It would be an improvement because it would remove any taint of partiality from the committees, which would be important for them in the carrying out of their function. They would be able to argue

that, although one may disagree with the appointments, the Government at least accepted a Labour party amendment and that the legislation has, to some extent, been subject to improvements from both parties and must therefore have a degree of impartiality. If people disagreed with the committee's decisions, there could be a public inquiry.
I should have thought that the Home Secretary would find it difficult to resist such a formula. However, he does some nasty things from time to time, so he may be able to resist it—signing exclusion orders was one especially unjust and nasty thing that he did recently, so I do not have much hope that he will consider the amendment in the spirit of good will and impartiality in order to get the best electoral arrangements in the creation of the additional seats.
The democratic processes apply equally to all parties, and we should obtain the best and fairest system possible. I should have thought that a public inquiry would be an advantage.
The Minister might argue that everything is being done in a frightful hurry because this hurried and lunatic system was set by the Common Market and we must follow suit and establish the new seats. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, public inquiries can be incorporated into a time scale to allow for decisions to be made and recommendations for Orders in Council sent to the House. A public inquiry would be included if there were any controversy, which is the only circumstance in which it is likely to be relevant. It is not a great possibility, but we should nevertheless legislate for it.
I am not very much in favour of the legislation, but, as I have offered such a reasonable amount of support for a reasonable amendment, I hope that the Home Secretary will be reasonable in return and will accept the amendment, because it would be a plus for the democratic system.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment. I suppose that one of the good things to come out of the Maastricht treaty is the fact that we are being allocated six extra seats in the European Parliament. I presume that it is because of the unification of Germany, and the subsequent increase in population, that Wales is to have a further seat and England another five. We debated Scotland's position yesterday, and I believe that it would have been fairer if Scotland had received an extra seat and if England had received four of the extra six.
The amendment asks for a public inquiry to decide the new Euro-constituency boundaries so that the public have the opportunity to make known their views. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I should have preferred it if the six seats had gone to additional Members under a system of proportionality. I am strongly in favour of electoral reform. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) received tremendous support from Conservative Members, which must be a cause of severe embarrassment to him. It reaffirmed my conviction that we need electoral reform.

Mr. Cryer: I guarantee that at the next election every Labour candidate, including my hon. Friend, will be saying that Labour can win under the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is answering the wrong question. His answer was right, but it was to a different question; that question will be posed in 1996, and I am sure that he has the right answer.
The question we must ask is whether our electoral system is fair, especially to the minority parties. When we have lived through the four Governments that we have, we must ask whether the system works in the best interests of the British people, of my hon. Friend's constituents and of mine. I am sure that we need electoral reform, and I thought that it was part of our agreement to join the European Community that proportionality would in due course be introduced in our elections to the European Parliament. That is an opportunity to introduce an element of proportionality.
As I understand it, the Government have known about the six extra seats since the Edinburgh summit in November last year. What have the Government been doing in the past six or eight months? Why have they not introduced the relevant legislation or set up the committees to establish the new boundaries? The lack of such legislation is a problem for the Conservative and Labour parties because they do not know exactly where the constituencies will be for the elections in June next year. It also removes the possibility of a public inquiry into the new Euro-constituency boundaries.
I am delighted that Wales is to receive an extra seat and that our existing four seats will be increased to five. It will give the Welsh people a louder voice in European affairs, but there are considerable problems in drawing the new constituency. I had hoped that the Boundary Commission would opt for minimum change and hold as many as possible of the Westminster constituencies within the three Euro-constituency boundaries. Broadly speaking, one constituency is Newport-based, one is Cardiff-based and one is Swansea-based, but there is a problem with the other two.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I must correct my right hon. Friend. It is quite wrong to say that the South East Wales constituency is Newport-based. As the ex-Member of the European Parliament for South East Wales, I can tell him that nine of the parliamentary constituencies covered by that seat were in the coal mining valleys rather than in Newport.

Mr. Williams: I stand corrected and bow to the superior knowledge of the former MEP for South West Wales. I must add that I am delighted with the new candidate selected for that seat and wish her well in the coming election. I am sure that we shall win the largest majority in Britain in that seat. I agree that I was using shorthand when I said that the constituency was Newport-based. What I meant was Gwent, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) says—the population of Gwent is heavily concentrated in the industrial valleys.
My area, Dyfed, is currently combined with West Glamorgan in the South West Wales European constituency. I hope that the Boundary Commission will reject one of the options put forward, which is that Dyfed should join Gwynedd, in which case my Member of the European Parliament would lose half his constituency, which would be split in two. Then there would be a constituency of western Wales, composed of north-west and south-west Wales in one slab.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right to express fears about what might happen in south-west Wales. In the 1973 reorganisation of local government, the Conservatives gerrymandered the county council and split up Glamorgan, thinking that they would take control of South Glamorgan. They were shocked immediately afterwards to find that the Labour party won the seat and has been in power ever since, but it was blatant gerrymandering.
In south-west Wales we are afra of a Tory carve-up so that the Tories can get a seat in Wales, because they have been rejected. We feel that there ought to be a public inquiry so that the gerrymandering of the Home Secretary—who happens to come from Llanelli—can at least be seen to be translucent.

Mr. Williams: I shall move on to that very point. inquiries are vital for the new Euro-constituencies, and I am sure that if there were a public inquiry mechanism, the possibility of a Dyfed-Gwynedd seat would never arise and we would stick to something more like Dyfed-Powys or Dyfed-Powys-West Glamorgan.
As I understand it, generally 70 per cent. of public inquiries about boundary changes result in substantial alterations, so it is a travesty to dispense with that mechanism.

Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 1983–84, when there was a large number of inquiries into proposed Euro-boundaries, the figure of 70 per cent. did not hold good?

Mr. Williams: I was not aware of that, but the adjustments at that time were generally quite small. For example, in my area eight constituencies increased to nine to form the new Euro-seat. It was just a case of slipping one across. But generally in boundary changes, as I understand it, 70 per cent. of public inquiries lead to alterations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned the involvement of the general public and the need to give them an opportunity to air their views openly, not in writing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) pointed out, people want to attend public inquiries and give their evidence orally. That opportunity helps to consolidate in people's minds the importance of the Euro-constituencies.
It is a cause for great regret that in every Euro-election the turnout in Britain has been far lower than in any other European country. I cannot remember, but I think it was less than 60 per cent. last time.
I certainly remember the first Euro-elections, in 1979, which came within a month of general election. I think that I was one of the hardest workers—or one of the hard workers—in my Euro-constituency in that election. The turnout was something like 33 or 36 per cent. nationally, but in our area it was the highest in Britain. Turnout in Euro-elections is poor, and if the electorate are denied the opportunity of a public inquiry, it is tantamount to a slap in the face. People will think, "It does not matter much to the Government anyway, so why should it matter to me? Why should I vote when the time comes?"
Public inquiries are necessary, and I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I appreciate that time is pressing and will keep my remarks brief.
Let me take hon. Members back to the Maastricht treaty, because the amendment goes right to the heart of the problems and anxieties that some of us had about the treaty, against which I voted consistently from Second Reading.
I was not so worried about the future of Europe, or whether we had a place in Europe, as I was about the fact that we were being swept along on a road towards federalism and conducting our affairs for the convenience of Europe.
In essence, my worries were borne out by the way in which this Bill deals with public inquiries. The Government assured us that subsidiarity would be one of the main advantages of the Maastricht treaty. There was plenty of discussion, as we know, about the definition of subsidiarity, but the main interpretation was that we would be able to conduct our affairs in the United Kingdom in the way that we had always done, which reassured the sceptics, like myself, who knew that we would probably lose the battle.
This Bill is one of the first major pieces of business to be introduced since we discussed the Maastricht issue. What does it do? It sweeps away our traditional method of selecting boundaries and introduces an entirely new system.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend says that the Bill introduces an entirely new system. May I remind him that in 1978, under the previous Labour Government, the initial boundaries were drawn up for the European elections without public inquiries?

Mr. Allason: That is certainly the case, but we were assured that it would never happen again. We are now being asked to change our system, and it seems that it pulls the rug from under the argument about subsidiarity. This would have been the ideal opportunity for the Government to say to those of us who are opposed to the Maastricht treaty, "Listen; here is an example of how subsidiarity works. We are using the European model, but we are adapting it to our conventions." The convention in this country has always been that an unpartisan and unbiased Boundary Commission considers boundaries and holds public inquiries.
Why do we hold public inquiries? It is not for any cosmetic purpose, but so that the man of the Clapham omnibus can believe that he has a fair crack of the whip. It means that he has a forum to which he can go to express his view about a boundary. Even if he fails and his argument is rejected, at least he has had his day in court.
That is the British way; it is about the man in the street having the right of freedom of speech and being able to express his views to the commissioner in a public forum. He may prevail, but, even if his argument is rejected, he will leave that forum knowing that he has had a fair crack of the whip. He may be disappointed, but when he goes home at night he can put his head on his pillow and sleep soundly because he is satisfied that he has seen justice done.
What alternative are the Government proposing? They are saying that there is not time for a public inquiry, that it is inconvenient and, furthermore, that instead there will be a committee that will not sit openly. It will receive representations from the general public, but how will they

know what deliberations took place? Will they, as I suspect, receive in reply a form letter saying, "Thank you very much indeed for your representations, which have been taken into account. Goodbye." That is not what I call democracy, and it will not enable any citizen of this country to believe that he has had a fair crack of the whip.
The Boundary Commission is part of the foundation of democracy in this country, and when we consider its history, and the history of the way in which constituencies have been drawn up, it is obvious that the drawing of a line in one place or in another, or the inclusion or exclusion of a ward, can make an enormous difference. When such deliberations are conducted in secret, and the public cannot have a fair say, I believe that that undermines the whole system. It certainly gives ammunition to people who believe that decisions are made in smoke-filled rooms. without any account being taken of views that may have been expressed in writing to the committee.
Many of us have considerable worries about Europe. We are worried about the principle of majority voting, and we have seen commitments being made to majority voting on such important issues as defence, security and foreign policy. We have had assurances from the Government about the implications of Maastricht for those important issues, which are matters of United Kingdom sovereignty.
My worry is that, on the first occasion when the Government could have made a commitment to the people of this country and demonstrated exactly what subsidiarity means in reality, they are taking the exact opposite course and saying, "Oh dear, we have an important commitment to Europe. We cannot change the June deadline. It would appear to be administratively inconvenient to have a public inquiry or to conduct some kind of investigation by November." That seems to me to strike right at the heart of the Maastricht treaty, and to highlight the worries that many Conservative Members have about its future, and about the path towards which the Government are leading us. Accordingly, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. John Marshall: I shall detain the House only briefly. Having served in the European Parliament, as has the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and having taken a close personal interest in the boundaries proposed in 1983, which were eventually determined in 1984, I know a little bit about the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) talked about subsidiarity. I should have thought that the Bill was a wonderful example of subsidiarity. We are the only country in the European Community with a first-past-the-post system; long may it remain. I know that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary says, things are moving our way on that issue, as on so many others.
It is somewhat ironic that one of the reasons for the Bill and the procedure outlined in it is the fact that the Government's legislative programme was bogged down when a number of Members refused to vote on procedural motions earlier this year. It seems rum that the very people who refused to vote on the procedural motions on Maastricht are now complaining about lack of time. If they had been more co-operative then, who knows what might have happened? They could have had the Boundary Commission. They could have had both. We might even have been on holiday by now, so we can blame them for that, too.
6.45 pm
What happened in 1983–84 was that, although the Boundary Commission made proposals in July 1983, they were not finally determined by the House of Commons until March 1984. The system of public inquiries is time consuming, so it was a long time before the decisions were finalised. We do not have that time now. We have only a short time, which is why I believe that the Government were right to make the present proposal. The fact that there will not be public inquiries does not mean that the original proposals will not be changed. In 1978, the proposals for London and Liverpool were changed as a result of representations, so there can be change even if there are no public inquiries.

Mr. Hoon: Of course boundaries can be changed, but one of the people who can change them is the Home Secretary. Is the hon. Gentleman content with that provision?

Mr. Marshall: The Home Secretary has always had that power, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will use the powers that he has been given far more dispassionately than did Lord Callaghan before the 1970 election. I find it appalling that a member of the Labour party should talk about gerrymandering, when what Lord Callaghan did then was the worst example of gerrymandering in the history of this country.
I am somewhat surprised that some hon. Members seem to believe that members of the general public are anxious to attend public inquiries, to give evidence and to be cross-examined by slick barristers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I did not say that all barristers were slick, I said that some were slick. Some are honourable—and some are right honourable. I believe that many members of the general public are happier if they can make their representations in writing, because they are intimidated by public inquiries, so they will find the procedures in the Bill most satisfactory.

Mr. Howard: I rise for the sole and specific purpose of giving my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) the assurance that I believe he sought. In the process set out in the Bill full account will certainly be taken of the knock-on effects to which my right hon. Friend referred, and full opportunity will be given to people who wish to make representations about those effects, to have those representations taken into account and to try to persuade the committees to amend their original recommendations for those reasons.

Mr. Graham Allen: I thank the Home Secretary for his speech. Innocent and naive as I readily admit that I am in the ways of the House, I had hopes on Second Reading that we might be able to find some common ground with the Home Secretary and his colleagues—common ground even broader than that which we found, although I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the assurances that he gave the House at that point. I thought that we would be able to reach common ground on the public inquiries, but it appears that we have not been able to achieve that. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that we would. None the less, I am disappointed—

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Allen: I shall give way shortly.
I am disappointed that common ground concerning a fundamental right in this country—the right to contest elections on honest boundaries, and on boundaries that are not only honest but are seen to be honest, because the correct process has been carried out—no longer appears to exist.
Now I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.

Mr. Rogers: I was about to ask my hon. Friend whether, when he looked at the Home Secretary and the massed ranks on the Conservative Benches, he realised that he would not get any fairness from them. The Conservative party is trying to improve its position in the European Parliament. It was annihilated at the European elections. Surely my hon. Friend does not expect fairness; surely he does not expect the Conservatives to support his proposals.

Mr. Allen: Again, I must admit my innocence in such matters—in contrast, perhaps, with the cynicism of my hon. Friend. I had hoped that, provided that we presented a rational case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did in great detail and with great care, we might be able to win over the Home Secretary and his Minister of State. The main reason for my hope was that we in the House must above all always be on our guard against any erosion of our democratic process.
No one pretends that the Home Secretary will leave the Chamber and fiddle boundaries for the European elections. I do not believe that that is his intention. However, our approach has been to convince the Home Secretary that the process must at all points be above reproach. It is a process that we have enjoyed in Britain —certainly it applies to parliamentary elections and recently to European elections—for some 50 years. I hope that the Secretary of State is happy to concede that the precedent being set is unfortunate and one that he would never wish to see repeated.
The Home Secretary said that the reason was that we have had a lack of time properly to conduct the process. There are reasons for that, which I shall mention later. We all agree that there has been a lack of time. Will the Home Secretary reassure us that there is no intention to use the change as a precedent for future boundary redistribution at European level or even at parliamentary or local government level? That answer would help set the right tone and tenor for the debate and vote.

Mr. Howard: There is certainly no intention to use that as a precedent for the future. I cannot anticipate the various circumstances that may arise, but certainly there is no intention to use it as a precedent. Circumstances that may arise will have to be dealt with on their merits.

Mr. Allen: The next problem that we face is that the proposals appear to be a matter of administrative convenience. Perhaps officials felt that this was the best way in which to progress. I appreciate that the Home Secretary assumed his post only a few weeks ago and cannot be held personally responsible for the delay that occurred before then. None the less, officials no doubt put it to him that such a course was the only way out of the situation in which the Government had got themselves. Again, the Government have decided to place administrative convenience above a fundamental pillar of our democracy.
I am reminded a little of the statement made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont—that we have a Government who may well be in office, but who on occasions are actually not in power.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: A minute ago, my hon. Friend said that the Government's action could be a precedent for the European boundaries. There is the exact danger of that happening in Wales, where we shall consider the Bill—perhaps in the autumn or in 12 months' time—on local government reorganisation that will set up around 21 new unitary authorities. Wales will also undergo boundary commission changes in constituency boundaries that will have to take into account the boundaries of those unitary authorities.
In 1995, we could well find ourselves right up against the deadline of a pending general election. The Government could argue that there was no time for proper public inquiries into Boundary Commission decisions in Wales and that the process would have to be speeded up. That would indeed be a sad precedent.

Mr. Allen: It is unfortunate that the building blocks of our parliamentary constituency boundaries—the local government boundaries and, ultimately our European boundaries—are, in a sense, being subverted by the way in which the Local Government Boundary Commission is going about its work. For the first time, there has been a political input, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen has pointed out. Once those building blocks and the ward and polling district boundaries are amended, and not in a way that demands cross-party support, a knock-on process begins into parliamentary seats and then further into European parliamentary seats. That has always been alien to our democratic tradition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield talked of how we might view the Bill if the phrase "the Minister of the Interior" were used in an old-fashioned eastern European sense. We would read the Bill differently in that context. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin gave us his experience of observing the processes of developing democracies in Africa and Asia where people would give their right arms to have an impartial and fair boundaries commission of the sort we have enjoyed for so long in this country.
We press for fair and free elections abroad. It is only here in Ruritania that the process is being thrown into reverse by the Boundary Commissions being done away with. Let us be clear about the Bill. It does away with Boundary Commissions in the European context. It abolishes the right to a public inquiry which the British people have enjoyed for many years. Clause 2 will abolish the right to be heard and the right of effective appeal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) explained so well.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill reduces the right to be heard and mentions his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. No one will ever reduce his right to be heard.
Far more importantly, will the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) accept that the Bill does not reduce the right of individuals to make representations? In the same way, individuals made representations in 1978 about the proposed boundaries, and they were able

by those representations to change them. There is no reason to believe that under the Bill, the original proposals will have some sort of imprimatur as a result of which they cannot be changed. The hon. Gentleman misleads the House and potential objectors when he implies that they will not have the right to be heard. They will have that right.

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman misses the point a little. I readily concede that individual members of the public will be able to make representations to the committees. There is no question about that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees. What will be missing is the right for those representations to be heard in a full public hearing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde pointed out that there are many people who do not wish to make written representations or who are incapable of making such representations effectively. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, I should not like to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde if I confronted him at a public inquiry. He could certainly defend himself, as many members of the public can.
In the previous round, there were 10 European boundary inquiries and five overturned provisional recommendations as a result of listening to people. People will no longer have that right.

Mr. Hoon: Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Hendon, South whether he will make representations at public inquiries into the boundary commission's recommendations about his constituency?

Mr. Allen: I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, South finds a suitable place for his talents if he loses his current place.

Mr. Greg Knight (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The House of Lords.

Mr. Allen: The House of Lords has been suggested. Unfortunately, that is out of my hands.
The Home Secretary tells us that we have a boundary commission in all but name. That may be true in terms of the composition of the new committees. Again, I am happy to place on record our thanks for his assurances about the composition of the new committees and for the news he gave us today about the individuals concerned. That is a reassurance. However, it cannot be said that the powers of the new committees will be identical to the powers that the Boundary Commissions once had, and certainly that is true in respect of public inquiries. Why?
The reason is entirely the Government's delay and incompetence in introducing the Bill. That in turn was caused by their fear of the Maastricht rebels. We shall see later tonight and perhaps in a minute or so whether that fear is justified.
The Home Secretary made an interesting intervention this afternoon. He said that there was a difference of only seven weeks between his view on the timetable and the view that the Opposition have expressed for a few weeks in our negotiations with the Home Office. If that is the case, I must ask the obvious question. Why was the Bill not introduced seven weeks ago? That would have permitted a full Boundary Commission with a public inquiry process.
The Home Secretary was not personally to blame, as he was not in that post seven weeks ago. But I hope that he will ask his officials in the Home Office why on earth a full


and proper Bill was not brought forward seven weeks ago. The difference of seven weeks is not the problem with the Bill and with the amendments—it is the 32 weeks that the Government wasted between the Edinburgh summit and the introduction of the Bill.
7 pm
The Opposition have set out a clear timetable in which the full process that the Home Secretary wants, plus the public inquiry that the Opposition want, can both be met. That is possible, and I.hope that those in the other place will examine the timetable. If we fail tonight, I hope that their Lordships make the necessary amendments so that British democracy can retain the full right of public inquiry that we have enjoyed for so long.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 298.

Division No. 323]
[7.pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cousins, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Alton, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyce, Jimmy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Garrett, John


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David





Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, William


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jamieson, David
Purchase, Ken


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Tessa
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rogers, Allan


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Salmond, Alex


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Simpson, Alan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Spellar, John


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mandelson, Peter
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Maxton. John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michle, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Milburn, Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Miller, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wicks, Malcolm


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morley. Elliot
Wilson, Brian


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wise, Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Ancram, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)






Ashby, David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coe, Sebastian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Cran, James
Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David





Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luff, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Maginnis, Ken
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trimble, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I did not take part in the earlier debate because I thought it important, rather than simply concentrating on the substance of the amendment, to identify the major weaknesses in the whole of clause 2.
Those of us who have taken part in a Boundary Commission inquiry, be it for a Westminster or European seat, will know that those matters are extraordinarily complex. They are open to enormous potential conflict of evidence and they are often a recipe for confusion.
Hon. Members should know that my participation in such Boundary Commission inquiries was as an unpaid amateur. As there are a large number of professionals in the Committee this evening—from the busy activity on the Treasury Benches, it looks as though they will all wish to speak on the clause—I should make it clear that I have never accepted a penny in recompense for my appearances on those occasions. As the Home Secretary made his name at planning inquiries as a planning silk, it will be well known on both sides of the House, whether by lawyers or those who have taken part in a more amateur capacity, that the way in which the committees under clause 2 are intending to proceed will not obviate the need for detailed and careful scrutiny of complex issues.
My experience of a Boundary Commission inquiry into a European seat was in July 1988, when the assistant commissioner of the Boundary Commission came to Bodmin and undertook a public inquiry into the future delineation of the Cornwall and Plymouth Euro-seat. A substantial case was put to him for a separate Cornish seat, some of which appears in an excellent book, "The Making of Modern Cornwall". I do not intend to read the whole book to you this evening, Mr. Lofthouse, although some Conservative Members would like me to do so as they could then go off and have a leisurely dinner and come back rather later.
When that public inquiry took place, there were detailed submissions about the nature of the combined seat of Cornwall and Plymouth with the intention to make it a more sensible seat, delineated by the natural boundary of the River Tamar.
You, Mr. Lofthouse, may not be fully acquainted with the geography of the far south-west of Britain, but I believe you will know that Cornwall is surrounded by water on three sides. Therefore, it is a comparatively easy seat to set boundaries to on three sides. The difficulty is to identify what should happen on the other side. The inquiry to which I have referred was concerned simply with the submission about that other side. However, the problem in most Euro-constituencies in this country will be far more complex, as there may be three or more lines to draw.
As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, the knock-on effect of some of these decisions will be substantial. However, in the inquiry to which I have referred, we were concerned to show that, although the population might not amount to the normal average for other parts of England, quite separate from Cornwall, the particular historical and geographical identity of Cornwall was such that it made very good sense to have a separate constituency. It would be as big in population terms as others in the European Community and as big as some of those in the north of Scotland.
Cornwall has a special identity and a great history. We have heard this evening from representatives from other Celtic kingdoms in the United Kingdom. Cornwall is the oldest of the Celtic kingdoms, so history was on our side. In "The Making of Modern Cornwall" the substance of the case made by Cornwall county council, which will demonstrate my thesis that these are very complex arguments, was put in the following terms:

Such feelings of loyalty are of a very different order from most counties in England. Indeed, Cornwall is almost an island with natural boundaries fixed by the coastline. It is largely isolated from the rest of the country. It has a strong separate identity with its own history, traditions, customs, language and (to some degree) law and institutions. Many of these attributes are firmly rooted in its Celtic past. It seems anomalous that such a community should not have its own separate voice in the European Parliament.
It will not surprise you, Mr. Lofthouse, to learn that, being Celts, those of us represented at the inquiry to which I have referred made a very eloquent case for a separate Cornish constituency.
I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will take my next point to heart. The assistant commissioner at the Boundary Commission was able to balance the strength of the argument against other arguments, including the argument that the employment draw of Plymouth was so important to parts of Cornwall that it formed a natural linkage.
We know from the earlier debate that representations will be circumscribed simply to written representations. Although representations are important, the real value lies in hearing those representations, testing them and being able to put counter representations in their place.
It is significant that, with all his experience and expertise, the assistant commissioner, when summing up the case in his report, said:
It is to be recalled also that together with the County Council of Cornwall, the views from other democratically elected bodies were virtually unanimous in their opposition. In the result my view is that there is a strong likelihood that the sentiments expressed at the Inquiry upon matters of history, culture, language and other emblems of 'separateness' would be shared by enough people in Cornwall to make this 'geographical consideration' a consideration of weight.
The assistant commissioner was able to weigh that consideration in that inquiry. I assume that, by a narrow margin, he concluded that the balance was against a separate Cornish constituency because the population in those terms and at that time was substantially lower than the average for other parts of the United Kingdom.
However, the problem remains and it will be even more stark in the forthcoming exercise. The population of Cornwall is now much closer to the average for other parts of the United Kingdom. What should be done? Should the present constituency remain? That will have to be considered by the committee and no doubt some people will argue for that very strongly. However, there will be a very strong case for arguing that collecting all three existing Plymouth constituencies and keeping them with Cornwall is irrational, because it takes us way over the national average.
Should one Westminster constituency in Plymouth be detached from that combined constituency? It would surely be extraordinary if that were to happen, and it would fly against all the assurances given by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State that, on the whole, cities will be kept together where possible within the new boundaries.
An alternative is that Plymouth should look eastwards and be the centre of a new parliamentary constituency. That might make some sense. However, would it be possible for Cornwall alone to match up to the population requirements? Another possibility would be to add west Devon and north Devon to Cornwall. That would present major opportunities for my party, but I set such partisan considerations aside, as you would expect, Mr. Lofthouse. However, there would be some sense to that connection, as


there would be a more sensible identity of interests, a commonality of interests between the rural areas of west and north Devon with those in Cornwall.
I hope that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State will respond to the point that the complexity of those considerations in that single example, where Cornwall is a relatively easy case to determine, will be mirrored time and again throughout England.

Mr. David Rendel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while in respect of several constituencies an entire county may form the major part of a constituency —and I am thinking of my constituency in particular—odd Westminster parliamentary constituencies may also be added on which may come from several different counties? Does my hon. Friend agree that that will confuse the electorate greatly? Does he accept that considerable consideration will have to be given to decide whether that is a sensible way to combine Westminster parliamentary constituencies into European parliamentary constituencies?

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is entirely right. The original Act to which the Bill refers was, most confusingly, not entitled the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. It was originally entitled the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, but it was subsequently renamed. Paragraph 9 of schedule 2 is relevant to our discussions and it was misunderstood by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) in the earlier debate. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, I will quote that paragraph:
In Great Britain—

(a) each Assembly constituency shall consist of an area that includes two or more parliamentary constituencies; and
(b) no parliamentary constituency shall be included partly in one Assembly constituency and partly in another."

Paragraph 10 states:
The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), may I say that it is by no means clear whether geographical considerations mean county boundaries as at present defined, or whether they are county boundaries as they may be defined after the rolling programme of the Local Government Commission has made major changes to the boundary geography of England and Wales. We heard a few minutes ago that the process is already in action in Wales and it is by no means clear from the Bill whether proper regard will be taken of those changes.
I would like to refer to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North as the right hon. Member for Oswestry. I gather that he would refer to himself in that way as well. The names that will be given to constituencies will give rise to yet another argument that will be adduced during the process. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred to the massive "upheaval" that will be caused by trying to slot in the additional seats in this way. How will this be achieved? What criteria will be used? Will the committees major on identity of interest?
I know that Hansard cannot see a map, but for aide-memoire purposes—I do not know all the boundaries well—I have brought a map with me. Let me demonstrate my point with one or two simple examples.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order in using a map.

Mr. Tyler: If I may refer to the text, it stands on all fours with my notes. I will not show the map to anybody; it is simply to remind me of the very difficult configuration of some boundaries. I shall refer to the names.
For example, there is the Wight and Hampshire East European constituency, which goes from Aldershot, which I have always regarded as an area of outer London, down to the southern tip of the Isle of Wight, which of course is a very long way from London—a most extraordinary shape. If somebody were to look at that constituency in a committee, he might take the view that there was some identity of interest among the good burghers of Aldershot, who have always made certain that they were represented in the House of Commons by a man of independent views. Whether that is then found to be the case all the way down through Hampshire East, through Havant, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth and across Spithead and the Solent to the Isle of Wight is far from clear. In those committees, somebody will make the point that there is no identity of interest, and then somebody will come up with a different proposition.
I could choose examples from all around the United Kingdom. There will not be just one simple proposition and then a statement of opposition. There will be proposition, modification, and consequences for next door, and there will be people whose political careers hang on those decisions.
To take one more example, in Dorset there is a constituency called Dorset East and Hampshire West, which includes several present Westminster constituencies, covering North Dorset, Weymouth, Portland, Purbeck, Poole, Bournemouth, East and Bournemouth, West, Dorset, East, Christchurch, New Forest and Romsey, as I read the map. It is extremely complicated. As Christchurch is in the middle, it is politically sensitive. Each of the propositions put to those committees will meet a counter-proposition by people whose livelihoods depend on the way in which the decision goes.
Without a public inquiry, as was made perfectly clear, it will take longer to look at all the representations and see how they interlock. With the assurances that were given by the Government, clearly it is not the Government's view that there will be a proposition which will be a fait accompli. We have been given all sorts of assurances that that will not be the case. There will be a proper opportunity to look at identity of interest, national boundaries, consistency, continuity and conterminous boundaries with local authorities and Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
That is a moving target. Although phase 1 of the local government review is now in place but open to objection, there are two, three, four and five still to come in England. There is a long process of change ahead of us. In Wales, as I have mentioned, the process is under way. Without a proper opportunity for scrutiny and challenge, and


without an opportunity to see the representations made by others, there clearly will not be any consensus of acceptance. That is why clause 2 is so defective.
The difficulty that the Government will create for itself, the Boundary Commission and the European Parliament is huge. The Home Secretary has airily dismissed concerns about finding people of appropriate talent and experience and people who can give their time. As I said, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly do not aspire to the fees that the Home Secretary used to obtain when he was at the Bar, but clearly the people who will have to adjudicate without coming to a public inquiry will be people of great stature and experience. They will have to clear the decks of all their other commitments, and we all know how expensive that can be. The commitment of time will be great and the costs will be huge.
Representations, if they are not considered with due care, will of course be open to challenge. There will be legal challenges by some means or another, even if it is to the courts, but presumably there will be access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

Mr. Hoon: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument about legal challenge, he needs to look a little more carefully at the Bill, because it precludes legal challenges.

Mr. Tyler: From legal advice that I have been given, I understand that the Bill precludes some successful legal challenges. I do not think that that means that there will not be attempts to do so. I have not yet had a clear answer. I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office, will tell us whether those committees, as creatures and agents of central Government, will be open to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. If so, as we all know from our experience as Members of Parliament, delays could be legion.
Had the Home Secretary been prepared to accept the feasibility of public inquiries, that problem could have been removed. That would have been the opportunity to ensure that there was proper discussion which was not open to this objection. The hon. Member for Ashfield is also a lawyer, so I must be careful about what I say about lawyers. However, there is also an opportunity to go to the European Court if it is thought that, by some means or other, the administration of the process does not fulfil the needs of natural justice.
We have heard much about timetables. Why do we have this clause at all? The legislation could have been introduced within a matter of days of the agreement at the Edinburgh summit. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned that we have been forced to discuss a period of seven weeks. Seven months ago, the legislation could have been before us. Then there might have been a reason for pursuing the recommendations and adding on the opportunity for a public inquiry, but there is no excuse now. It is quite absurd.
One of the Euro-sceptics, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), suggested that there was a connection with the Maastricht process. That is not true. This matter has nothing to do with the Maastricht process. It is a direct result of the Edinburgh summit. There was no need to await the outcome of the Maastricht discussions in the House of Commons or in the other place.
Of course, this absurd farrago could have been avoided if we had opted for the simple additionality principle which

the hon. Member for Lewes sensibly put forward earlier. We need not have had this complicated Bill, or the complications of this clause, if the Government had simply accepted that we could leave the existing Euroconstituencies intact without all this performance and simply apportioned the six new seats on a basis that would bring us into line, in some measure, with proportionality and make sure that our representation in the European Parliament actually reflected the views and the party loyalties of the people of this country.
Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill on principle, and we will do so until the last stage this evening, but on clause 2 in particular we believe that the Government have effectively argued themselves into a corner. They have said that this is the only way—

Mr. Rendel: I am amazed to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. I believe that, a while ago, the Government claimed that they wanted to make Great Britain the centre of Europe, in spirit if not geographically. I suppose that not even this Government would claim that, geographically, they could make the United Kingdom the centre of Europe. I thought that, in doing so, they intended to give a lead.
As I understand it, there is prior agreement that the European Parliament will be elected under a system of proportional representation which is to be agreed among all countries. Is my hon. Friend therefore saying that the Government's attempt to give a lead in Europe in this matter is in fact to make ours the only country which is not going along with that prior agreement? If so, I am amazed that the Government are working in this way, apparently against their decision to make Great Britain the heart of Europe.

Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend has slightly prejudged a section of my speech, which I shall come to in a moment. He missed an interesting speech earlier in which the hon. Member for Lewes made exactly the point to which my hon. Friend has referred, that sooner or later—I suspect that it will be sooner—the Government and their curiously retrograde Labour supporters must accept a form of representation in the European Parliament that reflects the proportion of support in this country.

Mr. Hoon: Lest there is any danger of the Committee being misled on this point, may I point out that the treaty of Rome requires a uniform electoral procedure. There is no mention whatever of proportionality in the treaty. I concede that every country other than the United Kingdom has some measure of proportionality in its system, but there is no consistency about any of those systems. Therefore, it is misleading to suggest that anything in the treaty requires the United Kingdom to have a proportional system. It is arguable that every other country could adopt the same system as that of the United Kingdom and still be consistent with the treaty of Rome.

Mr. Tyler: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because he is still a Member of the European Parliament and would have been there when the vote on this issue was taken on 11 March. I noted that a number of his colleagues in the Labour group in the European Parliament firmly voted with the majority for the adoption of the De Gucht report. I cannot do a quick calculation, but there was a fair number. Incidentally, I noted that there were three members of the Conservative group. By


the time the hon. Gentleman ceases to be a Member of the European Parliament, the system will be improved by becoming more representative.
It is our view that clause 2 is a tragically missed opportunity for precisely the reasons that the hon. Member for Lewes set out. It was the opportunity to move forward without any dislocation of the existing relationship between MEPs and their constituents to a system that, while not meeting all the requirements of the treaty of Rome or the debate that took place in the European Parliament in March, nevertheless would put us on course for that better system.
We need not have any of the gerrymandering that has been referred to this evening. We could have moved in that direction. That is why we believe that clause 2 should not be supported this evening and that we should go for a better system. There is time to do so because, as I said, we would support the simple system advanced by the hon. Member for Lewes as a sensible interim transitional stage.
Clearly, the Government are totally underestimating the scale of the problems that they will let loose on the new committees by adopting clause 2. The clause is extremely unclear about the rules that will govern the drawing up of boundaries. It is unclear whether the three-person review will redraw all of the boundaries to equalise the size of the European constituencies—excepting Scotland, which is outside the redrawing process to which we are referring —or the committees will simply attempt to fit in the new seats with minimal disruption. That could be difficult to decide in some circumstances, and the consequences could be immense.
I was in Brussels 10 days ago. Undoubtedly, it will be difficult for Brussels to identify the appropriate areas for various forms of grant support if we muck around with both the local authority boundaries and the European constituency boundaries not in a sensible, co-ordinated way but in a dislocated way. It will be extremely difficult for Brussels to know what is going on in this country, and we may lose more than we have in the past of the financial support that we should be receiving.
7.45 pm
As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said, there will be dangerous and difficult domino effects all the way up the country as a result of this exercise. For example, if the committees—as would be right in terms of priorities—started in the far south-west, came to sit in the area that I know so well and said, "We must make a change here," the consequences would be immense as they moved up through the country until they eventually ended up somewhere to the north of Berwick-upon-Tweed. It will be extremely difficult to identify precisely how that should be handled.
The full opportunity to assess the knock-on effects to which the Home Secretary referred in the previous debate cannot possibly be undertaken by the committees. How can they undertake that assessment? It is extremely difficult to imagine how it would be done, even if it were done with the full Boundary Commission doing a proper series of inquiries. It would be impossible to do it by written representation in secret.
That raises another important question. Previous reviews have always maintained that the equalisation of the population size of the European boundaries—this was

the case in the interim European constituency review in 1988–89—was the dominant factor in determining boundaries. But, as we all know, if the European parliamentary constituencies committees, undertaking their responsibilities as established by clause 2, are to stick to the dictum of equalising the size of the European constituencies, there is a big question about what will happen when the boundaries have to be redrawn after the next review of the Westminster parliamentary constituencies.
It is an extremely complex series of arguments. The jigsaw will keep moving. Some hon. Members may remember—indeed, Dame Janet, you may remember this from your schoolteaching days—that wonderful jigsaw that we all used to have with the individual counties coloured differently. Those counties did not seem to change from generation to generation. We could see the ones that our fathers and mothers used when they were at school. However, that has not been the case recently. The constant change of boundaries has meant that the consequences have spilled over into consideration of the boundaries for Westminster parliamentary constituencies and now Euro parliamentary constituencies.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on a third occasion, because he may not be aware of the difficulties that were caused at the recent Newbury by-election by the different boundaries—of which I am very aware. Recently, the county boundaries in our area changed. In some cases, only two houses moved across a county boundary, which caused a completely different polling arrangement to be made for those two houses. In one case, people were voting in a Hampshire county council election on the same day as they were voting in the Newbury parliamentary by-election with a completely different set of boundaries.
That sort of complication adds not only to the difficulties of the electors in those cases but immeasurably to the cost of running elections of that sort because special arrangements have to be made for a small number of elections simply because not all of the boundaries are changed at the same time.

Mr. Tyler: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The partial redrawing of the boundaries for so many different purposes is causing the most immense additional administrative and cost consequences. This will be a considerable addition to the complications of the committees appointed by the Home Secretary.
In clause 2, it is difficult to see whether this is intended to be a partial redrawing of boundaries to fit in the six new seats or a full-scale review of the whole of the pattern of European constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. It is not the whole of the United Kingdom—I wish it were —but only England and Wales.
The last four lines of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill are absolutely critical. I quote:
The effect of clause 2(5) is that Orders in Council made under the provisions of the Bill will in due course be superseded by Orders in Council made following the next reports of the Boundary Commissions under the 1978 Act.
This will never stop—it will go on and on. This is the most extraordinary attempt by the Home Secretary to cut a long process short. Those committees are a short cut. Otherwise, it is an attempt to persuade us that this is but another salami cut at how we order boundary revisions.
The United Kingdom has been in the European Community since 1973. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and the hon. Member for Lewes said earlier, the Government also signed article 138(3) of the treaty of Rome, which provides:
The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
We all know that member states use different systems, but they all have a standard principle, which is to try to approximate to proportionality. Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal use national list systems; Belgium and Italy use regional list systems; Germany uses a mixture of both; and Ireland uses the single transferable vote. The United Kingdom is the odd one out. It elects using two different systems. Let us not forget that the Government decided in their wisdom that a single transferable vote system was appropriate for Northern Ireland.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Let us not forget, either, that that is not relevant to the clause under consideration.

Mr. Tyler: That you, Dame Janet. However, you will soon see how relevant that point is. The principal Act to which the clause refers also deals with Northern Ireland, which is why I mention it. Clause 2 will make it even more evident that Britain is making no attempt to move towards a system that represents effectively the proportions of support of the different groups in our electorate. That is why such curious calculations are being made and Members are discussing how chopping off a little here and putting on a little there would be to the party advantage in a particular constituency under the first-past-the-post system. That does not happen under the systems adopted by other countries.
The clause would distort not only the political representation of this country in the European Parliament but the political balance of the whole European Parliament, and would weaken its authority as a truly representative assembly.
The Government's excuse for not adopting their part of the bargain is, and has always been, that the European Parliament has not taken a clear lead on that issue.

Mr. Hoon: indicated assent.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) is nodding in agreement. By adopting the De Gucht report by 207 votes to 80 in March, the European Parliament has thrown the decision back into the British Government's lap. Only the British veto prevents an advance. The Belgian presidency, which has just started, has put the issue at the top of its six-month agenda, so clearly a major advance will be made.

Mr. Hoon: These matters must be placed on the record accurately. Some years ago the European Parliament drew up a proposal for a uniform system and put it to the Council, which has never responded to that proposal. The De Gucht proposal may be misleading the hon. Gentleman, as it does not provide for a uniform procedure. If the Liberal Democrat party advocates a uniform procedure based on the treaty, it needs to explain

how it will persuade the Irish to adopt the system used in France, for example. Considerable difficulties exist on the continent, too, with the different systems. The Belgian system, for instance, is geared towards the linguistic difficulties there. There is no agreement on the continent about what uniform system should be employed.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) continues, I must warn him against pursuing these general arguments in this clause stand part debate. The clause does not deal with those arguments, and I cannot allow that strain of argument to continue.

Mr. Tyler: I accept your guidance, Dame Janet. Suffice it to say that, in the context of clause 2, it is surprising that the Labour party has not followed the advice of its own report by Lord Plant on that issue.

Mr. Allen: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman's throwaway remark pass without comment. The Labour party's position will be decided at our annual conference in the normal democratic way. The Plant committee was established some time ago and reported recently. Professor Plant's proposals for the European Parliament involve a regional list system, which is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a proportional system. The Leader of the Labour party has made his views plain on that matter, but it will be for the Labour party conference to decide on it in October. The hon. Gentleman should reserve his judgment, as we must in the democratic process.

Mr. Tyler: It is sad that we must all wait for the Labour party conference before we can deal with the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We do not have to wait for the Labour party conference. We can deal with matters here and now.

Mr. Tyler: I am delighted to hear that, Dame Janet. This would have to be one of my longer speeches if I had to keep talking until October.
The kernel of the problem is simply that the Bill provides an opportunity to simplify the process and to move towards a position that we shall have to accept. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to say that we must accept it eventually. Why not take the bull by the horns and adopt a sensible attitude now?
Writing in The Guardian on 26 June, Martin Kettle said:
What an ideal opportunity for the opposition parties to act together in a practical democratic cause in defence of good principle and clean process against a Government whose reputation for probity has all but evaporated. Will it happen? Well, what do you think?
The answer is that we must wait until October.

Mr. Allen: We do not have to wait until October. If Mr. Kettle of The Guardian had been present in the Chamber last night, he would have seen whether a consensus among the Opposition parties was likely. The manner in which the Liberal Democrat party behaved last night was no credit to the parliamentary process.

Mr. Tyler: It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and his great ranks of supporters who should be here to follow him into the Lobby tonight, will vote with us against the Bill on this clause and on Third Reading.
Clause 2 should have at least set down a system for distributing the six extra seats as a "top-up" reservoir to increase proportionality between the votes cast and the seats won—a sort of rudimentary addition to the one member, one vote system.
The hon. Member for Lewes, with his long experience in the House of Commons, put the matter much better than me and was perfectly right to do so. He said that it would not have been perfect—nobody can achieve perfection in one fell swoop—but it would have been a great step forward and would have made it possible for the Government to show that they have democratic credentials and intend to be, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, at the heart of Europe in every sense. If that change had been made, it might have been the thin end of the wedge, which some of the dinosaurs in both the larger parties fear.
Removing clause 2 would not leave a great vacuum, because we could immediately move to the solution that I have been propounding. That would have been a real advantage to the Government, without the need for this complicated Bill or for setting up gerrymandering committees, which have been the subject of so much criticism on both sides of the Committee. Existing members of the European Parliament, representing existing constituencies, would then know that their boundaries would not be changed out of all recognition. The hon. Member for Ashfield has a personal interest in this matter.

Mr. Hoon: No, I have not.

Mr. Tyler: There is no reason why proportionality could not have been introduced in the Bill, in time for the 1994 elections, through the adoption of wider geographical areas based on existing Euro-constituency boundaries and the use of either regional lists or single transferable vote. After full consultation, a proper system could then have been in place by 1999.
On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I invite the House to vote against the motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the House will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

8 pm

Mr. Hoon: I do not intend to speak for nearly as long as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the purpose and effect of clause 2(6), which states:
Any appointment made or other thing done by or in relation to a Committee at the time before the passing of this Act shall be regarded as valid if it would have been valid at that time, had this Act then been in force.
Why is it necessary to have such retrospective legislation in an Act of Parliament?
I hope I am not becoming cynical as a result of reading and rereading the Bill, but it can be necessary only if the Government have already appointed people to those committees, and if, to some extent, they are already carrying on their work and taking decisions.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Committee earlier today, but the Home Secretary not only told us of his intention to make the appointments before the Bill is passed. but informed us

that certain individuals had been consulted and had indicated their readiness to serve. Their names were not given, but they are clearly identifiable.

Mr. Hoon: I was in the Committee earlier and heard the Home Secretary speak. According to my recollection, he said that certain individuals had been approached and had indicated their willingness to serve. I do not recall his saying that they had been appointed. It follows that, under the terms of the Bill, if they had been appointed, they would expect to be paid for their services. I am sure that the Minister can deal with this shortly, and can tell us whether they have been appointed and are to be paid before the Act is passed.
It follows from that analysis of what has occured that the parliamentary process is being at least short-circuited if decisions are already being taken. If they are not, there is no need for this provision. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a rather curious provision, which should not be necessary.
If the appointments are to be made as a consequence of the passing of the Bill, I cannot see any necessity for the appointments to be made before Royal Assent. I recognise that the Home Office may wish to ascertain whether individuals are available and willing to serve, but there is no reason why they should be appointed before the legislation is passed. If they have not been appointed and there are no preparatory works under way in pursuit of the legislation, I cannot see why clause 2 (6) is necessary.

Sir David Steel: Like the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), I was astonished to find clause 2(6) in the Bill. I recall very clearly that when I first came to this place, some time ago, I was firmly told that we had to guard at all times against retrospective legislation. I remember several causes celebres in the late 1960s on this issue. Usually it was accidental retrospective legislation, but this is a blatant piece of retrospective legislation. The House is being invited to pass lines 21 to 24 on page 2 of the Bill, which state:
Any appointment made or other thing done by or in relation to a Committee at a time before the passing of this Act shall be regarded as valid if it would have been valid at that time, had this Act then been in force.
I have never seen a more blatant piece of retrospective legislation.
The hon. Member for Ashfield has asked for an explanation and if the Minister cannot justify it, he should at least have the good sense to ensure that this offensive clause is removed when the Bill proceeds to another place —although, as my hon. Friend said, we shall attempt to remove the clause this evening.
The main reason why I believe it is important that we make a stand against the clause is that there is a feeling that the Government, after so long in office, are developing an unhealthy form of parliamentary arrogance. You would rule me out of order, Dame Janet, if I were to discourse about what has been happening north of the border with local government boundaries. No doubt the House will be occupied with that in the next day or two, but it is all part of a picture that the Government do what they like, regardless of the inconvenience to communities, regardless of the cost and regardless of the disruption to the normal electoral procedures, which have been long established and accepted by successive Governments.
I make no secret of the fact that, when the Edinburgh summit concluded that there would be six extra seats, I went to see a number of Ministers to put to them the proposition that the sensible way to deal with the matter —although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, it was the official view of my party that all the seats should be elected by some form of proportional representation—was to leave the present Members of the European Parliament undisturbed in their single-Member seats throughout Britain, but to create six additional seats elected on a proportional or regional system. It struck me as a heaven-sent opportunity.
Part of my argument—which my hon. Friend modestly did not mention—is blatantly party political. It is indefensible that, in the forum of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, a party such as the Liberal Democrats in Britain—which in recent elections has gained from 18 to 25 per cent. of the popular vote, and in European elections have twice gained upwards of 20 per cent.—should be wholly unrepresented. As a matter of natural justice, that cannot be right.
Our electoral system distorts the balance of the political parties in that Chamber. As others have pointed out, it is quite natural that the other member states which have proportional systems find that the British system not only imposes a distorted delegation of 81 Members on the European Parliament, but, as we have seen in practice from European elections, imposes it at whatever happens to be the political climate at the time when the European election is held. At one time there will be a disproportionately heavy Labour majority because the elections are held at a time when a Conservative Government are unpopular, and at another it will be the other way round. That is an arbitrary way of messing up what is supposed to be a democratic assembly.

Mr. Rendel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although we are one of the only parties within the European Liberal Democrat group not represented in the European Parliament, we are one of the best supported in our own country? That makes the situation even more absurd.

Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is right.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There cannot be a full-blown debate on proportional representation on the basis of the clause. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Sir David Steel: As always, Dame Janet, you are absolutely correct. My argument is simply that, unless we remove clause 2 from the Bill, we cannot open the door to the proposal that I have put to the Government and on which I should like to elaborate.
The argument is not only that we are unrepresented, but that the Liberal Democratic group in the European Parliament is short of its largest democratic element. That cannot be justified by anyone because it is not natural justice. I put these arguments in my usual moderate and persuasive fashion to Ministers. At first sight, because the proposition was completely new to them—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What would have happened if Lord Owen or another member of the SDP had managed to get into the European Parliament and Liberals had also been elected? How could they have possibly been in the same party?

Sir David Steel: The answer to that is quite simple. We had an alliance in each of the last three European elections so there would have been no problem at all. The hon. Lady's question is hypothetical because nobody was elected from either party. The hon. Lady is testing your patience, Dame Janet, because we are going wide of the clause to which I am trying to speak. The Liberals, the Liberal Democrats as presently constituted, the old Liberal party before the SDP was formed and the alliance between the two had a substantial body of popular support in each of the European elections. That support was larger than that of many of the parties presently in the European Parliament, but we are wholly unrepresented.
The hon. Lady may think that that is perfectly all right, that it is tough, too bad. However, most people, and especially those in the other European democracies, think it is a scandal that we should export our distortion. What we do here is up to us: a distorted House of Commons is our decision. I regret that, but what right have we to import that distortion into the Parliament at Strasbourg?
Ministers listened politely to my arguments, as they always do, and went into their various huddles to ponder the matter. When the decision that is graphically spelt out in clause 2 for the appointment of these extraordinary new committees was announced, one wondered why such a reasonable proposition had been rejected. The only argument that I could find was that this might be the thin end of a wedge.
We are asked to believe that the nation will be so excited by the possibility that six Members of the European Parliament will be elected by proportional representation that the whole edifice of our electoral system will collapse. Is that a measure of the Government's confidence in our electoral system? It is a ludicrous proposition. There is no connection at all between the general argument for changes in the electoral system in this place and the modest proposal that the Government refuse to accept. Instead, they are leading us through the legislative minefield of clause 2. That is quite indefensible.
We oppose the clause because it goes against all the established principles and the long-established democratic and independent procedures of Boundary Commissions. That is the fundamental objection to the clause.

Mr. Rendel: rose—

Sir David Steel: My hon. Friend is agitating again. I shall happily give way to him.

Mr. Rendel: My right hon. Friend may be slightly misleading the Committee by suggesting that this might be the thin end of a wedge. That must be wrong: Northern Ireland is already the thin end of the wedge.

Sir David Steel: That is true, but it is the Government who argue that it is the thin end of the wedge. I do not. This "terrible infection" of proportional representation does not appear to have spread across the Irish sea, and I have no reason to think that it will spread anywhere else. I had moved on from that issue and was about to outline the other objections to the clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee of any two proportional representation systems on the continent that are the same? My understanding is that they are all different.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman moves to his next point.

Sir David Steel: In deference to you, Dame Janet, I shall do that, but I may touch on that matter later.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Delicately.

Sir David Steel: I shall deal with it very delicately and I will not be led astray by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Thank you for your protection, Dame Janet.
The clause creates the wholly artificial machinery of the European parliamentary constituency committees. Those committees are not adequately accountable. There is no provision in the clause for any form of public inquiry or consultation. When I was party leader I used to be involved in appointments to the Boundary Commission. The public do not generally realise that there is a secure and safe system for such appointments. We may complain from time to time about the Boundary Commission and its judgments, but the boundary commissioners are appointed in consultation with party leaders to make sure that they are genuinely independent of the Government of the day. That fundamental protection which has always been part of our system is to be swept aside by the clause, because the appointments are to be made directly by the Secretary of State.
Insufficient time has been allowed for carrying out a thorough review. More than that—here I return to the point eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall—clause 2 is a tragically missed opportunity because it was a ready-made, established possibility of introducing a fair system of voting, at least for the six seats.
The Government underestimate the scale of the problems that will arise from the clause, which leaves many questions unanswered. It is extremely unclear about the rules that the committees are to follow in drawing up the boundaries. It is also unclear whether the three-person review will redraw all the boundaries to equalise the size of the Euro-constituencies or whether it will attempt to fit in the new seats with minimal disruption. Perhaps the Minister will explain how it will work.
Will bits be fitted into what my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall rightly described as the jigsaw with minimal disruption, or, as has always been done in the past, will an equalisation rule be applied to the size of European constituencies? That was the dominant factor in determining boundaries in the 1989 interim European constituency review. If the new European parliamentary constituency committees established by the clause stick to the dictum of equalising the size of the Euro-seats, why does the Bill reveal that the boundary commissioners will redraw the boundaries again when they have finished the parliamentary review?
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall made a good case for trying to get some form of cohesive approach to local government reorganisation, parliamentary constituency boundaries and European Parliament constituency boundaries. To have different lines on the map of the kingdom for all three purposes is immensely confusing. It diminishes the nature of individual

communities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) illustrated in his intervention, it will be extremely costly to administer.
The disruption caused by such a second review, especially as the clause contains no provision for local inquiries and consultation, will not be welcomed by most of the sitting Members of the European Parliament or by local political parties. We need to know more about the ground rules for the operation of these purely appointed committees. Is it a partial redrawing of boundaries to fit in the six new seats, or is it a full-scale review to equalise the size of the European constituencies?
My comments are based on the lines of the explanatory memorandum. I am never quite sure whether it is in order to refer to the explanatory memorandum, but it states:
The effect of clause 2(5) is that Orders in Council made under the provisions of the Bill will in due course be superseded by Orders in Council made following the next reports of the Boundary Commissions under the 1978 Act".
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall argued, we have been in the Community since 1973 and when we signed the treaty of Rome we also signed up to article 138.3.
Here I take issue with the hon. Member for Ashfield. I have always interpreted article 138 as saying that
the European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
However, that phrase is not necessarily the same in law as a uniform system. I would argue that there is quite a lot of scope for flexibility so long as the principles of a uniform procedure are followed.
The fact that we are the only member state that fails to have any form of proportionality is a direct contravention of article 138.3 of the treaty of Rome.
The hon. Member for Lancaster asked me earlier about the different systems of proportionality. One could argue that Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal have roughly the same system by using national lists.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Very roughly.

Sir David Steel: Some countries use regional lists. I was a candidate in Europe—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman looked the wrong way on the road in Rome.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is very well aware that seated interventions are to be deplored. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not dwell again on proportionality, bearing in mind my warning on the last occasion.

Sir David Steel: I thank you, Dame Janet, for your protection against being led astray by the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was sitting here doing nothing.

Sir David Steel: I was just about to give the Committee the benefit of my experience as a candidate under a regional list system, but I suspect, Dame Janet, that I might be trying your patience a little were I to dwell too long on that issue.
I am familiar with different systems which are perfectly usuable and which are common not throughout the Community, but certainly in more than one country.

Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the excellent system that was promoted by the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, which took additionality and would work extremely well within the confines of the Bill? We could remove clause 2 and put in place the Hansard Society system, which produced additionality on the basis of single-Member constituencies and those who had reached a certain level of support. That system was not open to the objections of party lists to which hon. Members have referred. It was a British version of some of the other systems and had the merit of meeting the requirement to which my right hon. Friend referred, but at the same time gave it that British flavour which maintained the connection between individual constituencies and their representatives.

Sir David Steel: Not only was that a proposal frorn the Hansard Society, but the author of the De Gucht report, which was approved by the European Parliament, tried to make it as hard as possible for the British Government to reject it. The recommendations in that report allow two thirds of the British MEPs to continue to be elected by first past the post. One cannot say that it is a wholesale derogation from what we in Britain have been used to; they leaned over backwards to provide a system that was consistent with article 138 of the treaty of Rome, yet would meet British feelings and associations—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. My requirements are rather less. I am concerned only that we stick to clause 2.

Sir David Steel: On the contrary, I am trying to get rid of clause 2 to replace it with something superior.
I have come to the end of my argument. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) leaps to the Dispatch Box, no speech is complete unless we have had lastly, finally and in conclusion, and I have reached only lastly.
I end on a serious plea to the Government. I believe that the advantages to the Government in terms of simplicity of legislation and democratic accountability would have been not to proceed with clause 2 but to have gone for the system of adding the six seats in a manner which would be more widely acceptable to the population of Britain, the European Parliament and certainly to members of the Committee.

Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way, or has he reached finally, lastly and in conclusion? I should like to address some remarks to their Lordships, who may soon receive the Bill, and also to clause 2.
It falls to me to address my remarks to clause 2 and to remain in order on the very evening that you, Dame Janet, have been extremely liberal in your approach, so for once I will not stray from the clause under discussion; I have missed my chance. However, I want to put one or two things on record to assist the debate that may take place in the other place on clause 2.
This afternoon the Home Secretary talked about the seven-week difference between the timetable put forward by the Opposition—a timetable that would accommodate public inquiries—and the timetable that the Government themselves put forward in respect of the conclusion of the process of review and inquiry. Apparently, the seven-week gap has caused the whole project to founder because it has led to the need to have the Bill which is before us tonight.
In order to assist the debate here and in the other place, I should like to make it plain how we feel. In place of clause 2, there could be a timetable acceptable to just about everybody if they were willing to consider it rationally.
We would start with Second Reading which was on 30 June; on 2 July there would be consultation over the committees' membership; on 9 July confirmation of committees' membership and on 23 July the committees would determine provisional recommendations. The publication of provisional recommendations would be on 5 August and the final date for representations to the committees would be 19 September. The committees would consider those recommendations on 24 September. Notice of any public inquiries would be on 30 September and public inquiries themselves would be between 25 and 19 October. The assistant commissioners' reports could be submitted by 12 November; committees would determine final recommendations on 26 November and the publication of final recommendations would be on 9 December; therefore, the reports would go to the Home Secretary on 9 December.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point.
I have listed a timetable which could accommodate a public inquiry. The Government's proposals do not allow for that eventuality, but if goodwill were evident from the Government and, hopefully, in the other place, even now as the Bill goes to the other place, we could create a system by which a public inquiry of the sort with which we are all familiar could take place.

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is an incorrigible optimist. He has been present during many debates in the House when people have talked on and on, and having talked on and on, they have talked on and on again. His schedule has public inquiries between 25 and 29 October. How on earth will he persuade public inquiries, faced with people such as those who have been talking in the House and many of their supporters outside, to conclude on 29 October?

Mr. Allen: Let us be clear: we are talking not about planning inquiries, which can take months, but about inquiries into boundaries. Most conclude within a day, and the top whack is about a day and a half. There is a tradition of a disciplined approach.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are not disciplined.

Mr. Allen: Public inquiries on boundaries conclude promptly and with great discipline. The Home Office timetable is similar to ours in respect of the time it allows for a public inquiry.
We have a public inquiry so that people can talk and express their opinion, particularly where they feel that their interests as electors are at stake. The timetable makes no provision for revised recommendations. That would be difficult given the timetable constraints. However, provisional recommendations, objections, variations and counter-proposals would be subject to full and proper scrutiny and cross-examination at a public inquiry. The


committee's secretariat could easily make provisional bookings and arrangements for public inquiries at an early stage.

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: With some logic, the hon. Gentleman is supposing that all the people concerned want these elections to take place. Unfortunately, some people do not want them and will do everything they can to obstruct them, to the point where we might find ourselves moving to the next European Parliament without extra seats, because there will have been no election.

Mr. Allen: Indeed. I do not wish to make a partisan point, but the biggest delay has been the 32-week delay since the Edinburgh conference. It has taken that long to bring the Bill before the House. Even on the Home Secretary's logic, had seven of those weeks been used to bring forward this Bill, we would be discussing a Bill not on European parliamentary constituency committees, but on a Boundary Commission, empowered to have public inquiries and do the job properly. The hon. Lady should exercise some care in attributing blame for delay.
The wording of our amendment, which has now been defeated, provided scope for the committees to
have regard to Paragraph 5A of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act".
Thus, they would not be bound to hold a public inquiry on an objection from a principal local authority or more than 500 electors if it appeared that the objection was frivolous or if no viable counter-proposal or variation was being suggested. Our timetable is not designed to promote public inquiries, but simply to allow them where there is a genuine need. Let us not forget that we are talking about a maximum of 10 public inquiries for England and one for the other nations of the United Kingdom.
A meeting between the new committees on appointment with representatives of those political parties represented in Parliament for the respective part of the United Kingdom could take place. They could discuss the timetable, advance notice to parties, the format of public inquiries and, within England, any scope for considering the review within defined regional areas for the purposes of provisional recommendations and inquiries.
I shall make a final point for their Lordships who may discuss this at a later stage. If the wording of the amendment is the problem, there would be no objection to the Government using their own wording or to any Member of the other place tabling an appropriately worded amendment. That would be a useful job for the second Chamber to perform.
We believe that, even when the Bill goes to the second Chamber, if there is good will from the Government, there will still be time to allow a full public inquiry of the sort that we have been used to in this country for 50 years in our parliamentary elections and for the last two European elections. Despite the fact that we, in this House, have not taken the opportunity to assist the Government towards a sensible timetable, I hope that their Lordships will take that opportunity when it arises in the near future.

Mr. Maclennan: Throughout these debates, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has made it plain that the Labour party takes the view that a conventional approach to the allocation of new seats to the European Parliament would be possible and practical. What I have not heard so clearly is whether it would regard

that as desirable. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member drew attention to the advice that his party had received, and the support for that advice offered by Lord Plant and given by the leader of the Labour party, that what is proposed in the Bill should be supplanted by another system of election. It seems that the only impediment to the hon. Gentleman saying that clearly from the Front Bench is that the Labour party has not taken a formal decision in conference on the issue.

Mr. Allen: If it will help the hon. Gentleman, I should be pleased to put the position as clearly as I can. The Plant commission, established by the Labour party to look into electoral systems, proposed, as one of its many recommendations, a system of proportional representation—the regional list system—for the European Parliament. Its report said:
Such a system could be introduced by an incoming Labour Government for the 1999 elections at the earliest.
That report was sent to our national executive committee. On 19 May the leader of the Labour party stated:
The Committee concludes that different elected bodies can be chosen by different electoral systems. That is a view which I share and I support the proposals made both for a reformed Second Chamber and the European Parliament. The proposal on the European Parliament sensibly recommends consistency of voting for the one election that we share with other members of the European Community.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a final and binding decision for any political party has to he taken through the appropriate channels. The Labour party's annual conference will make that decision in October. Thereafter, our policy may be different. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the context in which those comments have been made.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to clarify the position. We can take it from what he said that his objections to the line that has been consistently set by my right hon. and hon. Friends throughout the debates is not one with which he takes issue. He has explained that he thinks that it is practical to build into the existing Bill a conventional approach to the election of Members of the European Parliament, following historical practice.
In a detailed way, he has set out the timetable that would enable that to take place. He has not set his face against the alternative proposal in place of clause 2, which has been advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in respect of its practicality or its principle. I believe that the Labour party may—

Mr. Allen: If my party is to commit itself to a different policy, it must be done according to the appropriate means that we have devised. In the interim, however, it would be unusual if we were to adopt a dog's breakfast of a system that is largely first past the post, with six seats elected under a different system bolted on to it. If we are to change the system, it must be done properly and, we hope, with a wider consensus, even across the Chamber, about future elections, particularly the one in 1999. It would be premature to make changes now, and it would result in confusion, which would not assist the hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Maclennan: The House will recall what the Home Secretary said about how he viewed these matters. The


De Gucht agreement, which united parties across the Community, including some British Conservatives, proposed a uniform system of proportional representation, leaving it free to member states to adopt their preferred option. The Home Secretary said that he intended to exercise a veto on that consensus—a decision that we found quite shocking and which must lead us to doubt whether it is reasonable to look to the Government to make progress in a consensual way. There has been no evidence that the Government have sought consensus.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has been reaching out to the Government, trying to see whether there is common ground on which the Labour party can stand with the Government—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that I shall not have to give a further warning about using the clause as a platform for debating wider issues than should be dealt with under the clause stand part debate.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful for your advice, Dame Janet. When I spoke at some length on clause I stand part, I am happy to say that I was not once subject to any advice. I hope I will not cause you to have to intervene again.
My reasons for opposing clause 2 are intimately linked with what will replace it if we are successful in deleting it. That, I believe, is procedurally appropriate to delineate and I do not wish to animadvert to matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall discussed with such lucidity, commanding the support of the Benches behind and around them. It would be supererogation for me to seek to surpass their eloquence.
We must recognise that this extraordinary clause is not in the traditions of best British democratic practice, but some may argue that, when making constitutional innovations there is no need to seek consensus. In fact, I suppose, historically it is true that many of our constitutional changes have been introduced in the teeth of the most fierce opposition—the Ballot Act 1872, the widening of the franchise and other matters.
Let us be in no doubt that clause 2 is a major constitutional innovation. Many people outside take the view that it is undesirable to take such a step without the consent of all political parties in the House, yet that is what the Government are asking us to do. They are asking us to accept the unilateral imposition of a system of delineation that is untraditional and clearly flawed in that it does not allow for proper argument on the appropriate boundaries.

Mr. Allen: I wish to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Were we in September or October, looking to European elections in June 1994, clearly it might be necessary, having wasted more weeks, to obtain some cross-party support for an emergency procedure that might even forgo public inquiries. I should have thought that, in those circumstances, all parties would be understanding, but in the current circumstances that does not apply because there is still time to institute a proper timetable with a full public inquiry. That is still on offer to the Government, which may explain their reluctance to promote the scheme.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.
The Home Secretary announced, before hearing any of the arguments, that he took the view that we should have a system for the delineation of seats that would impose a constitutional novelty on the country. He tried to explain to us that he thought it should be regarded as comparable to the Boundary Commission. The debate since then, little of which the Home Secretary has heard, has shown how far removed from the normal Boundary Commission procedure these set-up committees are. He talked about Boundary Commission membership being by agreement. Where is the agreement? Far from there being any agreement, we learn that this procedure will be imposed retrospectively under clause 2(6).
I do not want to prolong the debate. I regard the clause as a constitutional enormity that the House should reject out of hand, and I hope that the upper House will take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed by Opposition Members and a number of Conservative Members. There has been an overwhelming wish to reject the Bill and I hope that the upper House will recognise that and do the right thing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If we could guarantee that everyone was united in wanting us to have our fair share of the new additional Members of the European Parliament, it might be sensible to try to squeeze in public inquiries. Unfortunately, whatever the Opposition may say, we simply cannot guarantee that. Some hon. Members and some people outside, no doubt egged on by those hon. Members, do not want any more Members of the European Parliament and so could drag out proceedings at public inquiries and cause us to lose the extra seats. The elections would have come and gone and we would have lost the chance of the extra seats. The United Kingdom would therefore—

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
The United Kingdom would therefore be underrepresented, which I would regard as a great mistake. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like that. I think that he genuinely believes that these few days would be sufficient.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Sit down. It is therefore essential that we reject—

Mr. Wallace: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I also expect gentlemanly conduct. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) knows full well that, if the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall respond briefly to specific points and not to the general arguments, against which you have warned us sternly, Dame Janet, especially as the latter have been aired several times in previous debates.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made three points. First, the future shape of the Cornish Euro-constituency and every other Euro-seat is entirely a matter for the independent boundary committees, not for


me. The committees will have to follow the criteria of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which the hon. Gentleman related.
Let me repeat them for greater clarity: the Boundary Commission and the boundary committees, under the same rules, must produce Euro-constituencies which consist of a minimum of two parliamentary constituencies. There must be no overlap between parliamentary constituencies, and the Euro-constituency must be as near as possible to the quota, which means that it must be as near as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to the special geographical considerations of the region. Under those criteria, it is entirely a matter for the independent committees.
Secondly, the committees are not of course subject to the parliamentary commissioner but, like every other public body, they are liable to challenge in the courts. Only the order approved by both Houses is exempt from such a challenge, which is standard Boundary Commission legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it has been right in the past, and it is right now.

Mr. Tyler: The Minister is now admitting that the announcement, the fiats of the so-called independent committees, can be open to challenge in the courts, or judicial review. Does he therefore accept that there could be substantial delays when it is found that there will be no democratic base for open discussion and debate at a public inquiry for the fiats?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not admitting anything; I am telling the hon. Gentleman what is perfectly clear from a cursory reading of the Bill. Like any other public body or institution, the committees are open to review by the courts. The only things that are not are orders passed by the two Houses.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister mentions orders of the House, but is he satisfied that such orders are not subject to the courts if they contravene the treaties and therefore may not be in accordance with European Community law? Is he satisfied that any legislation passed by the House can override European Community law?

Mr. Lloyd: Great care is taken to ensure that any legislation passed by this House is on all fours with European Community law and with our obligations.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is surely aware of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which sought to deal with ships flying flags of convenience. Spanish vessels were taking British quotas and flying the British flag but they were essentially Spanish vessels. The Act was overturned by the Factortame case, not only in the House of Lords which queried it but by the European Court. In this Session, Parliament had to introduce legislation to undo the effect of the 1988 Act. Can the Minister guarantee that what we are passing tonight will not be overturned by a subsequent ruling of the European Court?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that what we are passing tonight—and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are passing it—is on all fours with the law and our obligations and will not be overturned by any court.
I deal now with the third issue raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. After redrawing the

parliamentary boundaries, the Boundary Commission will have to review the Euro-boundaries in the usual way. The Boundary Commission is properly required by statute to review Euro-boundaries after every general review of parliamentary boundaries. Not to do so would leave us with the real problems of overlap about which several hon. Members have complained.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) drew my attention to clause 2(6). The intention is to enable the committees to start work straight away. Amendment No. 23, for which the hon. Gentleman voted, was posited on the assumption that the committees would start work almost immediately and, in order for them to start immediately, that subsection must be included. The timetable mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) relies on the committees starting work straight away, but the hon. Gentleman wanted to wait until after Royal Assent, which may not be granted until the spillover period, thereby losing two or three months in which the committees could be working and hearing the representations that people will undoubtedly make on its provisional recommendations which we hope will be ready by the beginning of August. They could not possibly be ready by the middle of August if we were to accept the suggestion to remove clause 2(6).

Mr. Hoon: The Minister says that he wants the committees to start work immediately, but does he mean tomorrow or next week? When are the appointees going to take up their posts—or have they already started their work?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course they have not started their work, because we shall not appoint them until we have consulted leaders of Opposition parties. We have said that we are trying to secure the services of members of the Boundary Commission. We have gone a long way towards achieving that.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way on that point, because I have made it perfectly clear.

Mr. Foster: Will the Minister give way on the matter of consultation?

Mr. Lloyd: Very well, I give way on that matter.

Mr. Foster: I understood the Minister to say that no decision about membership would be made until there had been consultation with leaders of Opposition parties. Will he assure me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will be consulted before any decisions are made?

Mr. Lloyd: I have met representatives of the Liberal party to discuss our approach. If the leader of the Liberal party would like to be party to our conversations he can. Consultation is intended to make known the names of those whom we are considering appointing, and we shall of course do that before final letters of appointment are sent. I have understood from all the parties that if the committees are to be set up—whether or not they like the idea of committees—members of the Boundary Commission are the most suitable people to appoint.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd: Very briefly.

Mr. Allen: The Minister is currently going through the consultation process on the membership of the committees. Equally, the work programme timetable laid out by his Department will roll on until and including Royal Assent. I am sure that the Minister would not wish anyone to get the impression that people are waiting until Royal Assent to start work. I raise that point only to make matters absolutely clear for the benefit of their Lordships, who will be aware that work will be going on as they debate the issue.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I have made that fact clear already, and amendment No. 23, which the hon. Gentleman supported, assumed that that would happen. That is why it was absurd for the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) to say that this was the worst example of retrospective legislation that he had seen. The legislation is not retrospective at all in any normal meaning of that term—that is, it does not change the legality of a past action. The provision merely confirms that the current absence of the legislation from the statute book cannot be used later to argue that something perfectly valid that the committee does now became invalid when the Bill was enacted. That is the reverse of restrospective legislation, which is a particular reason, among the others that I have explained, why the House should allow clause 2 to stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 220, Noes 34.

Division No.324]
[8.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Coe, Sebastian
Gorst, John


Colvin, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Congdon, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)





Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hague, William
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Pickles, Eric


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Nick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawksley, Warren
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Hicks, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Horam, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sackville, Tom


Howell, Sir Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jenkin, Bernard
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spink, Dr Robert


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sproat, Iain


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stephen, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stern, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Streeter, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sweeney, Walter


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sykes, John


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thomason, Roy


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacKay, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Maclean, David
Thurnham, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Trend, Michael


Madel, David
Trimble, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Trotter, Neville


Malone, Gerald
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mans, Keith
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Ward, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waterson, Nigel


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Watts, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Whitney, Ray


Milligan, Stephen
Whittingdale, John


Mills, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Willetts, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wilshire, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm



Neubert, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Derek Conway.


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



Norris, Steve





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Bob


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dafis, Cynog






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rendel, David


Gordon, Mildred
Salmond, Alex


Harvey, Nick
Simpson, Alan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew


Lynne, Ms Liz



Maclennan, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Paul Tyler.


Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Cryer: The Bill should not be given a Third Reading without a few comments being made. The previous stages have been whipped through with far too much haste. Unfortunately, although one cannot question this issue, there has not been a wide range of amendments, which would have been useful. I wanted, for example, to discuss the costs of MEPs. Unfortunately, my amendment was not selected. That is a matter of regret, but it is out of my hands.
Adding to the number of MEPs does not necessarily mean greater democracy. The Assembly in Strasbourg is still a consultative assembly. It has not been given legislative powers. Legislative powers in the Common Market are still in the hands of the Council of Ministers, which meets in secret. There is no public scrutiny. Legislation is administered by unaccountable, appointed Commissioners. The idea that there has been an increase in democracy is wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "The gravy train."] Some Conservative Members, who will not speak on the Bill, but who like to chatter in a sedentary position, which is disgraceful, talk about a gravy train.
I have set my face against any gravy train. I have taken a cut in income to come to this place because I think that the House is relevant to the interests and aspirations of the people of the United Kingdom. The Common Market Assembly has little, if any, relevance. I question whether we should spend several million pounds over five years on extra Members. The Liberal Democrats are to call a vote on Third Reading because the legislation does not provide for proportional representation. I would oppose it even more vehemently if it did.
I shall vote against the Bill because it is not necessary. The legislation will add to the panoply that is called the Common Market. It has been a millstone around our neck since this country joined. Following the recent meeting of Common Market Heads of State, I asked the Prime Minister what were the benefits of our membership of the Community. An unaccustomed silence falls on the gathering when that topic is raised. The Prime Minister's reply was that Britain exported a lot of goods to the Common Market. The truth is that the other countries export more to us than we do to them. If Britain was not

in the Common Market, the remaining member states would give us trading concessions because they would want to keep a lucrative and expanding market.
Our membership of the Common Market has not benefited us. That is why I will vote against the Bill. The legislation will give credence to the Common Market, which has been a huge millstone around our neck. Our membership has cost Britain £2·5 billion a year, and has cost each family £18 a week for the extra food costs created by the Common Market.
The problems of the Common Market have not been solved. The so-called reforms achieved by the Government have cost the taxpayer more. Of that £2·5 billion, 70 per cent. still goes down that huge drain on resources called the common agriculture policy. The food mountains still exist. The whole creaking edifice of the Common Market should be attacked for what it is—a bureaucrats' delight. It is not about nations coming together. Nations could come together without the MEPs and the so-called Parliament in Strasbourg. We come together as nations when we need to; we do so, for example, through a superior organisation called the United Nations.

Mr. David Harris: If the hon. Gentleman so despises the European Parliament, or assembly as he calls it, why on earth did he sit in it for five years and join the gravy train that he is denouncing?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Cryer: I intend to answer as soon as Conservative Members stop chanting and give me a chance to be heard. Something should be done, Madam Speaker, about the noise from sedentary positions.
I was selected by the Labour party EC committee in Sheffield on the basis that I was opposed to the Common Market. It wanted someone who would not be seduced by the gravy trains and the wining and dining that go on in the Common Market. There is no doubt that the amount of money that is showered on MEPs tends to warp their judgment. After a while, people say, "Although I was critical, it is not so bad after all."
That did not happen to me. I remained true to the principle of opposition to the Common Market. My election address said that clearly. That was Labour party policy at that time. It was a sensible policy, and I regret that the Labour party has now shifted to acceptance of the Common Market.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must point out that this is the Third Reading of a Bill, and not a general exposition of the rights or wrongs of the European Community.

Mr. Cryer: I shall vote against the legislation, because I do not believe that any extra MEPs are necessary. I am told that, if the Bill is defeated in this legislature, it will cause repercussions throughout the Common Market. I take great pleasure in that thought. If it causes chaos that is even greater than the chaotic organisation that already prevails, that will he to our advantage.
I intend to vote against the Bill for entirely different reasons from those of the Liberal Democrats. I shall vote against extra people being sent to the Common Market. MEPs serve no useful purpose. It is true that for some people the European Parliament is a useful job creation scheme, but I see no possibility of adding to the democracy or, indeed, desirability of that.
The Westminster Parliament is the institution whose democracy we must improve. It is understood by people outside. This Parliament should be the focus of our attention. This Chamber and this Parliament are the means by which we shall reverse the dreadful excesses of the past 14 years when we get a Labour Government. That is our aim and intention. That must be our first priority. It should not be the nonsense of the Common Market.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 31.

Division No. 325]
[9.20 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Booth, Hartley
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian





Legg, Barry
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat, Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trimble, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Willetts. David


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Derek Conway.


Sackville, Tom



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)





NOES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Mahon, Alice


Barnes, Harry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Salmond, Alex


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Simpson, Alan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Dafis, Cynog
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Welsh, Andrew


Kirkwood, Archy
Wray, Jimmy


Lewis, Terry



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Don Foster.


Lynne, Ms Liz

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Fishing Industry (Decommissioning)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 (Si., 1993, No. 1345), dated 25th May 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
I shall begin by sharing with the House some words in a recent report by the European Court of Auditors on former decommisioning schemes. For me, the words sum up clearly the problems that we are facing in fisheries management. It said:
It must be said that since the CFP was instituted the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources.
That is backed up by some cold hard facts on the state of the United Kingdom's fishing stocks. Comparing 1992 with 1989, the spawning stock of North sea cod was down by 30 per cent., that of North sea haddock was down by 12 per cent., that of west of Scotland cod was down by 14 per cent., that of Irish sea cod was down 32 per cent., and that of Celtic sea cod down by 65 per cent. Overall, our scientists advise that all stocks in United Kingdom waters are vulnerable.
It is important to see the debate in the context not just of the pressure of fishing stocks in the United Kingdom but of news from Canada, carried today in the Financial Times, which brings home to us, all too bleakly, what happens when capacity is not limited.
The east coast fishery in Canada has been devastated in recent years with the entire removal of its northern cod stocks. As a result, that fishery had to be closed for two years and 20,000 fishermen and plant employees were put out of work. In summing up, the Canadian authorities said:
the necessary drastic reductions in fishing mortalities can only be achieved by substantially decreased fishing effort and these reductions need to be permanent.
That gives a clear indication of why we should be discussing this decommissioning order today.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).

Mrs. Ewing: The common fisheries policy is a key aspect of the European Community. Does the Minister agree that that policy was based on the idea that the Spaniards should not have access to the North sea until the next century, but that has been brought forward as a result of the actions of this Government and at the expense of Scottish fishermen? Does he also accept that the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992, as it currently stands, is a distinct disadvantage to our men, their families and communities?

Mr. Jack: It grieves me to hear the hon. Lady asking me a question when she clearly has not read the recent Hansard report of my statement following the Fisheries

Council in Luxembourg. If she had read my statement and had seen reports of what happened at that Council in Luxembourg, she would realise that the United Kingdom Government were in the lead in fighting for the parts in the accession treaty in respect of Portugal and Spain to be honoured, but only in the context that there would be no increase in fishing effort.
If the hon. Lady had read those reports, she would be aware of our efforts to ensure that our fishermen would not be disadvantaged in that respect. The United Kingdom Government could not have been in the lead in respect of Spain and Portugal because those countries were arguing their own cases. I will deal with the other aspects of the hon. Lady's question after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown.

Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of responsible fishermen accept that conservation is necessary? They understand and are aware that we are in danger of eliminating fish stocks around our coasts. However, instead of following the path that is being proposed, would it not be far better to reduce the mesh size of the nets—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, increase them."] Well, at least that makes it easier for the fish to get away. I got there in the end. My hon. Friend the Minister knows exactly what I mean.
Would it not be better to increase the mesh size, as that would allow fish to get away? That would have an effect on catches for one year. However, in the longer term, that would be of enormous benefit to the fishing industry in this country and to the continent as a whole.

Mr. Jack: If we were simply debating conservation, my hon. Friend would have a point. In fairness to the fishing industry, it has taken certain measures and our one-net rule lends itself to the point that my hon. Friend was making. One chooses an appropriate net size according to the species one wishes to catch.
I must inform my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown that, in concert with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, we are carrying out a conservation exercise which will take into account the points that my hon. Friend has made. He is right, but his point does not sadly address the essential issue of the scheme, which deals with decommissioning and its contribution to meeting the targets of our multi-annual guidance programmes which are expressed in terms of tonnage.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The information that I heard from the previous Fisheries Council is exactly contrary to what the Minister is saying. That information is that the British Government, under pressure, presumably from the Foreign Office which always looks to give way on these matters, devoted their time to consumer matters and to opposing any restriction on imports from outside the EEC, and the Commission blithely assumed that the Spanish and Portuguese demands, which are basically for access to the North sea and the Irish sea in particular from 1996, will be granted. That is not so, to the extent that the Irish Minister had to come over and harangue our civil servants for not backing Ireland in opposition to that.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman spent less time sowing seeds of discontent and misinformation and more time reading Hansard, he would know the facts. He was not


sitting in a Fisheries Council in Luxembourg last week, as I was, supporting the Irish Minister. We needed no persuasion about the need to stick to the strict terms of the treaty and the accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal. We need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about defending the interests of Britain's fishermen.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree—this point goes to the very heart of the matter—that no matter what debates there might be about the various theories of conservation, fishermen and the public need to be reassured about whether measures taken as a whole put our fishermen at a greater disadvantage than their EC counterparts? Will my hon. Friend say something about that?

Mr. Jack: I am certainly very determined that Britain's fishermen should not be put at a disadvantage. I will certainly insist that other member states are as effective as possible in taking steps to achieve their multi-annual guidance programme target. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point.
Many people in the British fishing industry are deeply concerned that our continental competitors are not doing what they should on enforcement. We fought long and hard in the recent Fisheries Council to ensure that the new control regulation, which, for the first time, includes independent and random inspection by Community inspectors of other people's inspection systems, was brought into force. We want that greater transparency, greater openness and greater knowledge in enforcement of the common fisheries policy. Our fishermen deserve that protection, and we are fighting for it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister knows that this decommissioning package was initially contingent on the days-at-sea legislation. I understand that the Minister is about to change tack on the days-at-sea legislation. Will he tell us what that change of course is? Is it a genuine change of mind, or is it merely a delay in implementation? I do not want to write the hon. Gentleman's speech, but could he refer to that information, which is of enormous concern to all hon. Members with fishing constituencies?

Mr. Jack: Let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman. He is the last person whom I would ask to be my speechwriter. I sail dinghies. Any changes in tack depend on which way the wind is blowing. So far, it is not blowing from a very propitious quarter.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor in the debate is getting down to some more of the facts, rather than the fiction that appears to be regularly peddled by Fishing News? It misinterprets everything that is done and greatly alarms fishermen. Has my hon. Friend joined that newspaper's rogues' gallery of the ones that got away, by suggesting that trawlers in his constituency are affected by the regulations? It would be a change if that journal stuck to the truth rather than spread mayhem, lies and distortions.

Mr. Jack: Fishing News is a lively journal. It has picked out my hon. Friend's constituency with its three trawlers and my constituency with one trawler. If that is the way that those who pay for such advertisements wish to proceed, so be it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jack: If hon. Members will forgive me for a moment, I shall not give way. I wish to make a little progress. I want to debate the order or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might rule that I am straying too far from decommissioning.
I was discussing Canadian fish stocks. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be convinced by my arguments. Those are very good reasons indeed why we must control the overall fishing effort. But to achieve that, we already have in place measures such as total allowable catches and quotas, but, by themselves, they are not able to do the job that we require.
The only sure way to conserve fish stocks and thus ensure the long-term future of the industry is to have less fishing. The industry accepts the need for conservation, but the perspective of the individual fisherman is somewhat different. For him, there is no incentive voluntarily to limit his fishing effort or to see that such an approach is fair and effective. He needs a guarantee that such actions are being applied collectively.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: rose—

Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress.
That is why Governments throughout the world have taken responsibility for the conservation of fish stocks for the good of their fishing industries and the European Community has agreed multi-annual guidance programmes with targets for capacity reduction and limiting effort, which all member states must achieve by the end of 1996.
That is why, in February 1992, the Government announced a package of conservation measures aimed at reducing fishing effort—in other words, the number of fish caught—including changes to the licensing regime, the £25 million decommissioning scheme and, indeed, the days-at-sea restrictions.
I shall say more on that last point, but I want to focus on decommissioning, which is a key element of the package.

Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend referred to the need for fishermen to be reassured about their future. He will know that the wives of the fishermen in Hastings are marching through the town tomorrow and presenting a petition showing their worry about the future. Can he give me the reassurance that they seek—that the fishermen will not be facing unemployment and hardship, which is as they currently see it?

Mr. Jack: The message that my hon. Friend can give to the wives of her fishermen is that they have a Member of Parliament who is assiduous in the way that she has supported their interests. She campaigns for the interests of the fishermen in that part of the world—[Interruption.] The noise is coming from the other side of the House. It is coming from Labour Members, who had no words about fishing or decommissioning in their manifesto, and SNP Members, whose sole contribution in their manifesto was to say that fishing was 10 times more important in Scotland than in England. They are the ones who are making the noise. It is the voice of my hon. Friend that is important.
One way of achieving less fishing effort is to have fewer vessels and that is the objective of the decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Elliot Morley: rose—

Mr. Jack: I shall make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that, with regard to the fairness with which debates should be conducted, the Minister should acknowledge that the scheme applies to Northern Ireland as well as to England and Scotland. He should give way at least once to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Jack: There will be plenty of time for hon. Members to intervene, because I have a lot more material to go through. I wish to get on the record the subject of the scheme. I am sure that other hon. Members will have their chance to speak. I want to finish this passage and then I will give way.
The scheme has the potential to reduce the United Kingdom fleet by about 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes and make a contribution to our MAGP target of at least 5 per cent. but that approach cannot be the whole story, because decommissioning alone could simply result in the remaining vessels fishing harder and, therefore, maintaining pressure on the scarce fish stocks. In proposing this decommissioning scheme, we had to think long and hard.

Mr. John D. Taylor: It will not go down well in Northern Ireland that the Minister has gone out of his way to ignore Northern Ireland Members this evening. We were not howling at what the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) was saying. We were howling because she voted against the interests of her fishermen throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. I simply want to ask the Minister whether this is—[Interruption.] The Minister is not listening. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I shall get on with it in my own time with the permission of the Deputy Speaker and not because of Conservative Members' comments from a sedentary position.
The scheme that we are asked to approve applies to British fishing vessels—those of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—but not to those from elsewhere in the European Community. It discriminates against the interests of the British fishing industry. [HON MEMBERS: "Silly."] It is not a matter of being silly.
As the fish in the Irish sea do not recognise the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, how can 1, as a constituency Member for Northern Ireland, tell my fishermen that their vessels should be tied up in port while the southern Irish fishermen are free to catch the fish which my fishermen should be allowed to catch on equal terms, if the common fisheries policy is to be equal?

Mr. Jack: I had hoped that we might have a more sensible intervention after all that shouting. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that every country in the Community has signed up to the system of the multi-annual guidance programme—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) waves his hands, but those are the rules of the game by which we are playing. Other member states have also decided to have their own decommissioning schemes to achieve that target. The scheme is not discriminatory. The targets exist for everybody to achieve and it is up to individual member

states to determine how to achieve them and have their scheme agreed with the Commission. I have outlined our policy.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: No, I must make some progress. My hon. Friend must be patient for a moment because I have not yet given way to the hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office were highly critical of the previous decommissioning scheme. It gave poor value for money and some vessels rejoined the fleet simply to claim grant. The scheme was inflexible and had no specific objectives. More recently, the European Court of Auditors has made similar criticisms of the schemes operated by other member states.
In spite of large sums of money having been spent on decommissioning schemes, the impact on effort was negligible. Many of the vessels decommissioned were small and not fishing much, and there were no limits to prevent the rest of the fleet from fishing more intensively or new vessels from joining the fleet. Belgium, the Netherlands and Greece had decommissioning schemes, but, like the United Kingdom, they did not achieve their multi-annual guidance programmes.

Mr. Steen: The whole House should be grateful for the effort and energy that my hon. Friend the Minister is putting into wrestling with a difficult problem faced by this country.
Is it possible for us not to implement the scheme until the other European countries have similar arrangements? If we could delay implementation until all the other European countries had similar legislation in place, it would be a level playing field, or a calm sea. The most important contribution that the Government could make to the debate is not to enforce the scheme until the other European countries are doing exactly the same and there is cross-border enforcement.

Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot undo what the House has agreed in terms of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. However, I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the most important aspect of the new control regulation is that it will try to ensure that everybody plays by common rules. Our fishing industry seeks that important reassurance, and we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure commonality of enforcement of that policy.
The task of Opposition Members who criticise the Bill is to tell the House what they would do—how they would meet our multi-annual guidance programme, if not by decommissioning. If they say that this scheme is too little, too late, they must tell us how much they would spend, where they would "get the money from and what impact it would have on the fishing industry. It is easy to criticise, but more difficult to be constructive.
As I have indicated to my hon. Friends, the manifesto of the official Opposition did not contain a word about fishing. That is how much they have cared.

Mr. Morley: I think that the Minister's brief is a bit inadequate. The reason why there was not a word in our manifesto was that we dedicated a detailed policy document to the fishing industry, which I launched at


Tynemouth during the general election. Rather than calling on the Opposition to say what we would do to deal with the problem, the Minister should get to the point and tell us whether he is going to improve this rather feeble decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Jack: In the interests of greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy of the document, the so-called document "Marine Harvest"—a product of the home-produced word processor industry beloved of the Labour party. It is a thin diet and hardly -worth a read; it contains no facts and no quantifiable proposals.
Our facts on the decommissioning scheme were contained in our manifesto. That shows just how much in-depth research that the Opposition do.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: No, I want to make some progress. I want to put on record how we will spend £25 million on our decommissioning scheme.
I praise my predecessors for the efforts that they have made in fighting the Treasury to ensure that we have this money in the light of the record of the previous decommissioning scheme. The track record of that scheme was not good, and did not take tonnage out of the fishing industry in the way that it should have.
We have won this money. Before the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) derides me once more from behind his bright and shiny tie—which is typical of the glitz and glitter that he likes to create—let me tell the House that the £25 million is being backed up by £18 million on research and £20 million on fisheries protection. Those are substantial sums in relation to the size of the fishing industry.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is to set out the rules for the payment of decommissioning grant. Eligibility for the grant—I am now coming to the good bits —is restricted to registered fishing vessels that are over 10 m long and over 10 years of age, are seaworthy, have a valid fishing licence that has not been downgraded since 27 February 1992 and were acquired before that date. Those vessels should have spent at least 100 days on fishing trips in each of the years 1991 and 1992.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: No, the hon. Gentleman must hear the good news. This is how they will get the money.
Payment for vessels decommissioned will be determined by a tendering process, with bids ranked according to pounds per vessel capacity unit. That approach will enable us to take out the largest catching capacity for the available funds. Owners of eligible vessels must be prepared to scrap and deregister their vessels and surrender all their licences by 1 March 1994. That is a much tighter scheme than its predecessor.
Those are the eligibility rules which will apply for 1993–94. Next year, they may be changed in the light of the experience of this year's scheme. In that way, we can provide for the best targeting of funds. I know that the Opposition will like that.
Moreover, £8·4 million is available under the 1993–94 scheme, and £25 million in total. A press announcement inviting applications under the scheme was made on 26 May 1993. The closing date for applications is 9 July.
However, we have had representations from fishermen that that deadline is too tight, particularly in view of uncertainties. I am pleased to announce an extension to the end of the month, to allow fishermen to reflect further and apply if they wish.
I believe that this scheme, as part of the package of conservation measures that I have described, represents an excellent opportunity for fishermen who wish to leave the industry. It will help to reduce fishing effort, and help us to meet our European Community obligations.
But what about the other main element of the package, the days-at-sea restrictions? The fishing industry has expressed many doubts about these restrictions, and I am fully aware that some sectors of the industry have ideas about alternative solutions or specific concerns about the detail of the days-at-sea rules that they want addressed. When the Minister and I were appointed we said that we would listen to the industry on those matters. We have both met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I had a long meeting at Brixham with representatives of the fishing industry. I have been to the EC Fisheries Council, I propose to go to Humberside next week and I have several other engagements lined up in fishing areas.
My Scottish Office colleagues and I will shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We will continue to listen, but I should like to hear from hon. Members about the issues that are arising in their constituencies. With their help, we want to look at ideas for dealing with the problems and to see whether we can be more flexible and responsive to the industry's needs.
To allow more time for this dialogue, I now announce a postponement of the days-at-sea restrictions. They will not be introduced until January 1994. That will give us the opportunity to consult fully with the industry about its concerns and to hear its ideas for tackling conservation.

Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the Minister's announcement. He is a great improvement on his predecessor, and the Secretary of State is an even bigger improvement. [Interruption.] I agree with the Minister about my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I wish he would shut up occasionally.
The Minister said that he wanted to hear from hon. Members. My constituents in Girvan, Ballantrae and Dunure, and those who fish out of Ayr, are worried about the effect of the tie-up regulations on fishermen who fish stocks that are not precious and for which conservation is not a problem. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to the fishermen and looks again at the matter, he will pay attention to that problem.

Mr. Jack: That is the most constructive Opposition contribution during the debate. I am glad that at least one Opposition Member is alive to some of the industry's real problems. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an interesting point. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has left the Chamber, fishermen in Brixham also raised that matter with me. They also asked about crustacean fishermen. It is important that such ideas are fleshed out and considered, and I look forward to such dialogue.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that he and his colleagues from the Scottish Office would shortly meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The federation was given to believe at a much earlier stage that that meeting might


have taken place by now and would have been with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When will the meeting be held—or is the federation just being given a hope and a prayer?

Mr. Jack: The fishermen may have prayed to see me and their prayer has been answered. We hope to have the meeting as soon as possible. When I met them at a preliminary meeting in Luxembourg last week, I indicated that we would be meeting as soon as I could fit such a meeting into my diary.

Mrs. Ewing: Is it a blind date?

Mr. Jack: I cannot tell the hon. Lady that. Orders and other bits of parliamentary business keep appearing in my diary just when I want to see people such as the Scottish fishermen. As soon as that business is out of the way, I shall go to see them. I will try to have the meeting before the end of July, but, in any case, it will be held as soon as possible.

Mr. David Trimble: rose—

Mr. Jack: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Trimble: I was impressed by the Minister's itinerary. He has been to Brixham, and intends to visit Humberside and Scotland. When does he intend to go to Northern Ireland to speak to fishermen there?

Mr. Jack: As always, I took many of the engagements because people had the courtesy to invite me. Obviously, my right hon. Friend and I want to listen to representatives of fishermen from all parts of the country and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient indication that, if the appropriate invitation comes, we shall do our best to listen to those views.

Mrs. Ewing: Obviously we are concerned about the blind date which seems to be emerging between the Minister and representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. I hope that we can have some clarification of the immediate need for that particular meeting to take place. Given what he has already said about the Department's change of attitude, what attitude does he strike towards the pelagic fleet which has already met its MAGP requirements, and to the prawn fishermen who represent a very important part of the fishing industry? Many areas, including Buckie in my constituency, are dependent on the crustacean fishermen.

Mr. Jack: It is just like blind date; one never knows what will happen until the screen rolls back. We are on either side of the screen at the moment; I hope that it will roll back and we will have a proper dialogue. The hon. Lady's question draws attention to another area of complexity in a difficult subject—differences between regional fishing area in the way in which policy impacts. I already have a flavour of that from some of the representations that I have received and I will certainly want to hear more and have it developed.
I say to everybody who wants to contribute to the discussion that it must be with the objective of enabling us to meet our multi-annual guidance programme. It is no use running away from the fundamental task of reducing the

fishing effort in Britain and Europe. I gave a clear indication at the start of the debate about what happened in Canadian waters when dramatic overfishing occurred.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a genuine feeling for the industry which is full of dedicated individuals who each day gamble with their economics, their lives, the weather and their well-being. I try to understand that, but, if there is to be an industry and fish stocks for them to enjoy in future, we have to find ways of balancing the effort and the catching capacity of the fleet to the available fishing stocks.
The proposals that I have put before the House this evening are a way forward.

Mr. Morley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will have the chance to put this point of view later, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister, because it is a crucial point.
In the discussions that the Minister intends to have with the industry, will there be a possibility of new money being put on the table? We have heard nothing tonight about any increased funding of the core of the decommissioning scheme. If there is no new money, what is the point of having discussions on making the scheme work better?

Mr. Jack: I have just announced the spending of £25 million. It is not an insubstantial sum. Let us assume that the head nodders on the Opposition Benches have now committed their respective parties to very large sums of public expenditure. Let me put it this way. We shall be spending £8·4 million in the first year of decommissioning.
Whichever way the hon. Gentleman seeks to interpret it, and I know how he may argue the case, the fact is that British taxpayers' money is being spent. We want to make certain that the money is applied as effectively as possible and that the new decommissioning scheme does not run foul of the problems of the previous scheme.
Before the hon. Gentleman smiles and blindly promises money away, he should read the European Court of Auditors' report from the beginning to the end of its 100-odd pages and he will see why we have to be careful with public money.
I said that we wished to postpone the introduction of days-at-sea regulations until 1 January 1994, and I want to make quite certain that we give a reasonable amount of time to representations from the fishing industry. I want those to be concluded by the end of September so that we can have a proper time to consider carefully what those representations contain and can then take those into account in terms of the final arrangements for days at sea and their application from 1 January.
Our task will not be easy. Reducing effort in the fishing industry is difficult, but it remains a key part of our multi-annual guidance programme targets. Effort control cannot be abandoned in the long-term interests of the fishing industry. It is vital to ensure that we make the best use of the £25 million available for decommissioning. We cannot remove vessels from the fleet and allow other vessels to fish harder.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement of a postponement of days-at-sea restrictions until next year will be warmly welcomed in the west country, where there has been a great


deal of concern about that? Can he confirm that the decommissioning scheme will not be postponed? Will he also say whether that extra period will give us an opportunity to observe what our European competitors will be doing to conserve their own fish stocks, so that we can see how they are performing against standard?

Mr. Jack: I can confirm that, apart from the extension on applications, which I mentioned earlier, there will he no delay on the decommissioning scheme. As an act of faith, we are putting this scheme before the House. We said that we would introduce the scheme, and that is what we are doing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) said, it is important to see what other countries are doing. As my predecessor indicated, he wanted to make that a key part of the policies that we are adopting. It is vital that others work hard to meet their multi-annual guidance programmes. We will be watching that carefully, as we will the whole issue of the enforcement of the common fishing policy.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: I must come to a conclusion. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and it would be churlish for me to take more time than is necessary.
We want to listen carefully to the views expressed in the debate. We want to listen to the views of colleagues from both sides of the House, many of whom are deeply involved with their fishermen and the fishing industry. We want to listen to the fishing industry because it is from the industry that the ideas for managment of change must now come. I commend the scheme to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I had hoped that the new Minister would have had an opportunity to look again at the decommissioning scheme and the whole package. He claims that he has looked at it. He has made some suggestions, which both I and the industry welcome. We welcome the stay of execution from this autumn until January 1994. I could be a little churlish and wonder how much that delay has to do with the fact that his Ministry is having difficulty getting it ready to operate from this autumn. That may have influenced the decision. Nevertheless, the Minister has given an assurance that he will consult the industry and I welcome that. However, in his battles with the Treasury, it seems that not one penny of extra money has been put on the table to improve the scheme.
The Minister was full of bluster about the previous decommissioning scheme. The National Audit Office report did criticise that scheme, but it also made it clear that the principle was sound. The reason that it did not work was the Government's incompetence in administering the scheme.
The key issues involved in the package of decommissioning, which is allied to days at sea, are reducing capacity and conservation. We have never, in all these debates, argued against the genuine need for capacity reduction and for tackling conservation. Our question concerns the best way of going about that. We do not feel that the Government have gone far enough or fast enough.

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the amount of money put into the scheme this year. Will he give some indication of how much more money he thinks should be put into the scheme this year to make it effective? I genuinely want to know how much more money he thinks is needed to make the scheme work.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is hypothetical to ask the Opposition how much money should be allocated, but I shall answer the question directly. He knows that there are two reasons why I cannot give a figure: first, I am not in office and do not know what the situation will be in a few years' time; secondly, when we give guarantees and assurances, unlike the Government's assurances on tax and VAT, we will honour them and ensure that they are delivered. if the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in his Minister that he wants me to make suggestions, I shall happily do so. He should know that, according to the Government's figures, this package will cost an extra £1·4 million in bureaucracy and enforcement, but I suspect that the total will prove to be much higher.
I shall suggest an alternative approach to the hon. Gentleman which would allow money for enforcement to be added to the total package, attracting a further 70 per cent. from European Community funds. It must be borne in mind that the £25 million is a gross figure comprised of 70 per cent. of European Community money and a very small Government contribution. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to introduce measures, he can move a motion of no confidence and we will he only too pleased to take over.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that any of the money that the Government are proposing for decommissioning will go to the crews? It would be an outrage if employees who work on fishing vessels were to find themselves redundant and without compensation and all the extra money were to go to skippers or owners. I hope that, when we have a Labour Government, we will ensure fair distribution of this money.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was disappointed that the Minister did not mention the affected communities that will lose jobs as a result of even this decommissioning scheme. The Minister should be arguing for Community social funds for those communities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking on behalf of the many share fishermen who stand to get nothing out of the measure.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is not only a question of the amount on which these pedantic party political points will be raised but the timing. Had the scheme been introduced when we were asking for it four or five years ago, we would not be in this situation. Every other EC country has put its multi-annual guidance programmes in place by introducing a decommissioning scheme on time and sufficiently funded, which is why we are now behind.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I shall deal with in a moment.
We want to see good value for public money and an effective decommissioning scheme. We have no argument about evaluating it and deciding how it operates, but other EC states have been using the scheme for a long time. Labour has consistently argued for the introduction of a decommissioning scheme, but the Government's failure to


act has impacted on our fishing fleet. Does the Minister accept that part of the crisis of over-capacity is of the Government's own making? Between 1987 and 1991 no effort was made to introduce a decommissioning scheme, and the Government consistently failed to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets. They must recognise their responsibility and ensure that the industry does not shoulder the full blame.

Mr. Jack: May I check a point of detail? The hon. Gentleman said that he favoured an effective decommissioning policy and cited those who had criticised the previous policy. Does his scheme include as a point of effectiveness an effort reduction policy?

Mr. Morley: An effort reduction policy is certainly extremely important, but it must be considered in the light of technical conservation measures. I shall deal with that point later, but I wish now to dwell on an issue which is at the heart of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. The Government accepted an amendment to the effect that they were duty bound to
first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet.
Does the Minister believe that the scheme reduces the fleet significantly? Does it honour that section of the Bill? What considceration has he given to an effective decommissioning scheme to meet the requirements of the Act?
Will the Minister confirm that the decommissioning scheme was initially meant to be financed over a two-year period, whereas it is now projected to be over a three-year period? The decommissioning scheme, as opposed, has therefore been weakened rather than strengthened, and he can hardly claim that it is effective.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer that point. It is an effective scheme because, by spreading it over a longer period, we have the opportunity to examine how it is hitting the targets. I said that it was designed to take out 10,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes but we may find that the first tranche does not necessarily affect the areas that are most effective in taking out the greatest tonnage in pursuit of our MAGP targets. Opposition Members intervened to ask us to recognise specific differences in the way that fishing is carried out, so I should have thought that having time to reflect and adjust strengthens the scheme,

Mr. Morley: We shall see, but I would argue that it has weakened the scheme.
Does the Minister accept that the £25 million that has been committed will reduce the fleet's capacity only by a measly 5 per cent? That does not go very far and I would hardly say that it was an effective or significant reduction.
Will the Minister confirm that 70 per cent. of the overall funding for the scheme will come from the European Community? Like other Ministers, he may mention the Fontainebleau agreement and how the money is clawed back, but will he confirm that the money that fishermen will receive as part of the decommissioning will be subject to tax? The House would welcome a clarification of how the tax will be calculated; will it be corporation tax or capital gains tax? It would be useful to know.
The Minister said that the scheme has been criticised as being too little too late. He accused the Labour party of

making that criticism, but, although we endorse it, it was in fact made by the House of Lords all-party Select Committee. The Minister has not dealt with the fact that, because of technical improvements, the catching rate of the fleet has increased by 2 per cent. a year. Due to the delay, for which I hold the Government responsible, capacity has also increased.
Does the Minister acknowledge the bitterness felt by fishermen when they compare how they have been treated with the way in which the agricultural sector is treated? When there is over-capacity in the agricultural sector, farmers are offered substantial compensation for not growing crops, but when there is a problem in the fishing industry, the response has been a tiny decommissioning scheme and compulsory days in port. Fishermen also have loans and mortgages to pay and families to keep and they feel bitter about the dual standards that the Government have adopted when dealing with them and the agricultural sector.
On scrapping procedures, has the Minister given any thought to how fishermen will find enough places for their boats to be scrapped and who will scrap them? Has he given any thought to the question of who will scrap wooden fishing boats? That is an unusual detail. Does he accept the fact that, as I understand it, fishermen will have to pay between £6,000 and £10,000 for the scrapping of their boats, which has to be included in the bid that they make for the decomissioning money?
I shall make some suggestions to the Minister and deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I challenge the Minister, when he meets the fishermen, to consider their proposals for dealing with effort reduction by means of a package of effective and workable technical conservation measures. The Minister has his scheme in place and he can always implement it. He announced tonight that he will delay implementation until January 1994. Why does not he take a step further and delay the scheme until January 1995, to give technical conservation measures a chance? We could evaluate them and see whether they work and we could give the fishing industry a chance to make them work.
Does the Minister recognise that the industry wants to be involved and that the fishermen have sensible and constructive suggestions, which I believe could work? If he will not consider those, will he consider, as an alternative, giving fishermen an option involving technical conservation gear rather than enforcing days in port?

Mr. Jack: rose—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Wait until the end.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has been generous in allowing me to intervene and I would like to pick up a few more of the points that he has raised.
I made it clear in my speech that we were working closely with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on its technical conservation review. I am sure that other such measures will be suggested for us to consider, but will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, if those measures are to contribute to achieving the multi-annual guidance programme target, they must be agreed by the Commission to be helpful in that respect? If such ideas are proposed, we are prepared to discuss them


with the Commission, but we must agree that the point at which all our ideas must come together is the achieving of the MAGP target.

Mr. Morley: I accept that, but does the Minister accept that the Commission has been pressing the Government for many years to take up its offer of decommissioning grant, yet until recently the Government have consistently ignored the offer? If the fishermen are making an offer on technical conservation measures, which will cost them money and, by their very nature, reduce their catching capacity, the Minister in turn should give some sign that he is willing to move in terms of the money on the table for the decommissioning scheme.
Is he prepared to move on the idea of returning to a two-year period for decommissioning? The period should be as short as possible. We all accept that we must reduce the fleet, so surely it is better to do that as quickly as possible, to ensure that the reduction is effective, rather than having a slow process that will do neither the industry nor fish stocks any good.
As I said, fishermen will have to put in a bid for the scrapping of their vessels. Will the Minister consider a radical alternative to scrapping and examine, with his colleagues in the Overseas Development Administration, a package of measures that could be financed by EC money from another budget, and which would allow the boats, rather than being scrapped and wasted, to be used in an aid programme for developing countries, as part of a package of support measures for fishing in those countries? I appreciate that there may be technical difficulties, but will the Minister consider and discuss the idea? It would certainly be a more usesful way of disposing of the boats. Indeed, saving the scrapping element in the bids would provide more money that could go into the pot for an effective decommissioning scheme.

Mr. Mans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, especially as he has done so twice. flow would he get over the problem that would arise if, when we had sent those vessels to third-world countries, they found their way back into British waters to fish our stocks?

Mr. Morley: There would be control by licence applications.

Mr. David Harris: They would buy licences.

Mr. Morley: There is nothing to stop other member states buying licences now, so there would be no change there. It is unlikely that such vessels would find their way hack. There may he ways in which to deal with that in terms of the overall package. However, the main point is that, if boats do not have a licence, they simply cannot fish.
If the Minister feels that that suggestion is not feasible, and if the boats are to be disposed of in this country, will he consider the idea of sinking them rather than scrapping them? They could be sunk to create artificial reefs, which could be used for fish conservation, for marine diving, for rod fishermen or for the protection of conservation areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) would not object to a few scuttled boats in the south-west mackerel box to protect fish stocks there.
I shall bring my speech to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am sure that they appreciate

that there have been many interventions from hon. Members of all parties. It is right to allow interventions and to allow hon. Members to make their points.
I do not believe that the Government have considered all the options available to them. As I said, if the proposal is successful and takes on board the technical gear conservation measures, it would be possible to add the savings of £1·4 million of annual revenue commitment for enforcement and scrapping to make the decommissioning scheme more viable.
The measure does not go far enough. It does not meet the Government's pledges or the obligations they have accepted. It discriminates unfairly against British fishermen while the fishermen of other EC states, which have made good use of their decommissioning money over the years and which have called on more money from the EC than is the case with our Government, are allowed to fish unhindered. Our fishermen face restrictive and punitive tie-up measures.
I ask the Minister to consider all those points, to take note of the interventions from both sides of the House, to consult the fishermen and to use the breathing space that he has announced tonight to ensure that we have a more sensible, more generous and more effective decommissioning package which will really bring about a sustainable industry in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members will notice that only an hour is now available for the remainder of the debate. Many hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will be brief and will give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak.

Mr. David Harris: I welcome very much the tone of my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I also welcome his main announcement that he will postpone implementation of the freezing of effort control, at least until January. I am sure that that will be welcomed by the industry, especially in the south-west, as has been said. I am sure, to echo the points made by the hon. Member for Glanford annd Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is a reasonable hon. Member, that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that the time is well spent in listening, as he said, to the views of the fishing industry. At long last, the fishing industry is taking a positive approach to what we all recognise to be a very difficult problem.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend paid tribute to his predecessor. He had a difficult time—the understatement of the year—in fishing matters. However, he was instrumental in getting £25 million from the Treasury, as my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledges. He did that largely because there was—[HON. MEMBERS: "A general election."] Not at all because of the general election. he did that largely because there was agreement by hon. Members of all parties who represent fishing constituencies about the part that a decommissioning scheme could and should play in trying to resolve this difficult problem.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course a decommissioning scheme of itself cannot begin to solve the problem. He was also right to concentrate on the limitations of a decommissioning scheme and to point out


our unhappy experiences when we had a decommissioning scheme before. I have never gone along with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations when it has tried to put the emphasis on decommissioning in bringing about a better balance in the fleet. Decommissioning certainly has a part to play, but it cannot solve, or begin to solve, most of the problem.
It is no secret that I do not believe that £25 million over three years is adequate for a decommissioning scheme. I know that many of my colleagues who also represent fishing constituencies take that view. I should like to see the amount increased. For what it is worth, I have given my hon. Friend the Minister some private advice on the matter. I am delighted to see the Secretary of State here for the debate. The private advice that I gave was that together the Minister and the Secretary of State should find money from within their Departmental budget for decommissioning.
I am reinforced in that view by something that happened today in a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member. We took evidence from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on whether Britain should rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. That is a point close to the heart of the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). She also cares passionately about the interests of her fishermen. Later tonight, in the Adjournment debate, she will undoubtedly argue that we should rejoin UNESCO.
Our subscription to UNESCO would be £11 million a year. Over three years, the cost of rejoining UNESCO would be significantly more than the amount proposed for the decommissioning scheme to help restructure the fishing industry. That puts the matter into context. More money should certainly be made available for the decommissioning scheme.
I also share some of the anxieties expressed by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, about some of the details of the scheme. He mentioned the cost of scrapping vessels. That is relevant. He also mentioned taxation. There is uncertainty about taxation. I hope that the Minister will clarify exactly how the fishermen will stand in respect of capital gains if they take decommissioning money.
There is also the issue of technical progression in the industry. It is always increasing its capacity to catch. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that it increased its capacity by some 2 per cent. a year. I gather that the term for that in the trade is technical creep.

Mr. John Home Robertson: A Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Harris: Fortunately, my days as a PPS are long behind me. I am told that the amount of money for decommissioning will hardly match the technical creep in the industry. So, again, the amount proposed for the scheme is not adequate.
I now strike a positive note. The Minister's remarks were welcome. There is a new mood in the industry. I was heartened to hear reports of the discussions that took place in the south-west on 22 May in Brixham between

representatives of the industry and Ministry scientists about some other ways of achieving conservation. It is no secret to the House that I have pressed for such discussions for more than a year. The industry was slow to respond to that challenge, but now it is responding. So my plea to the Minister tonight is to take advantage of a changing mood in the industry, put behind us the unhappiness of the past, look to the future and concentrate on how we can devise better ways to achieve conservation than the Government's proposals.
Again, it is no secret that I and some of my colleagues, especially those from Cornwall, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) have consistently opposed the principle of tie-up. It is not the right way forward.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that while we welcome the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Minister this evening, it would have had greater credence—I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree in his heart of hearts—if he had agreed to suspend the implementation of the tie-up restrictions until there was tangible evidence that our European fishing partners were taking similar measures. That is the crucial point for my hon. Friend's fishermen in Newlyn and for mine in Looe and Polperro.

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is right. I share his view, which some of us pressed on our Front Bench colleagues earlier this evening. The previous agreement—the Gummer or Curry agreement—given in the famous debate of last year, that the Government would not move to the next stage until it was proved that others were implementing equivalent or equally effective measures, was a big step forward. We want Ministers to go one step further, and not go ahead with the suspension in January unless there is positive evidence that other member states are also taking that action.
There is now a window of opportunity. If the industry acts positively, as I hope and believe that it will, and if my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials act positively, perhaps we will not need to implement the tie-up scheme. I urge him to take that opportunity.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions last week about the number of boats that were restricted to tie-up in England and the west country, and in particular the number of vessels that, because they do not have a track record, have been given a minimum provisional allocation of 80 days or 160 half days. His answer was that, of the 1,582 boats in England subject to tie-up, 801—over half—are in that category.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend would announce tonight that he would increase that number. I know that he is concerned about the subject and is looking at it carefully. I press him to make an early decision to increase the allocation, because the vessels have not had to keep log books and records, and are being put in an invidious position. It would be an enormous help, and another sign of his good faith towards the industry, if he could make an announcement on that.

Mr. Jack: That is the kind of suggestion that we shall think on carefully.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's approach. I hope that we can return to a reasonable


relationship between the industry and the Government, because the present trench warfare is in the interests of no one.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall begin by spending a few seconds expressing my sympathy to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has been deprived of the chance to go to the farewell dinner for Lord Sanderson, while Tory Back Benchers think that that is much more important than being in the Chamber to defend the fishing industry, from which they derived some votes.
I have only one quarrel with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I did not find the Minister's tone conciliatory. I thought that the belligerent way in which he opened the debate was the traditional way of demonstrating weakness—when one has a weak case, shout the others down. I began to think that the Government had learnt nothing from our previous debates.
Our debates on the fishing industry over the past few years have shown a rigidity of purpose among Ministers, brought about by mental paralysis. They seem to be totally incapable of independent thought. However, they have had ample opportunity, provided by the fishing industry—

Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way. Many other hon. Members wish to speak. I do not have much time and I want to make my remarks speedily and so allow other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), an opportunity to speak. I will not be like the Minister and speak for 40 minutes. Thai was quite disgraceful.
The Government are incapable of considering the very constructive points made by the fishing industry. Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Government's apparent conciliatory measure of postponing the days-at-sea regulations until 1 January next year. However, we are not looking for a temporary respite. We are looking for a real, fundamental reappraisal. It is not enough to say that we will put it off for six months or whatever and then come back in January and do nothing.
The Minister announced that the date for application of the decommissioning scheme has been extended to the end of the month as if that was some great concession. It is not a great concession. The Minister must recognise that people will have to consider whether to sell their vessels and so lose their livelihoods and that of their crews. That is not an easy decision. The Minister might argue that people in the industry should have made their minds up by now. That is perhaps a reasonable criticism. However, things have been so tough for those people that it has not been possible for them to make rational decisions.
I welcome the new ministerial team. The team began by saying that it was going to be a much more listening team and that there was to be less of the macho style and the style that Whitehall, Dover house in London and St. Andrew's house know best. We were told that the team would listen. However, the Minister has not listened to the industry.
The industry is saying quite specifically that the decommissioning scheme takes out of the overcapacity only 5 per cent. while the Minister has signed up to a

reduction of 19 per cent. If the Minister's scheme works totally, it will produce a saving of only one quarter of what he has signed up to reduce. The £25 million which was initially due to be spent over two years is now to be spent over three years. If enough applications come forward, and if they meet all the criteria, is the Minister prepared to spend that money in one year and then argue for more?
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) demanded to know how much we would spend. As soon as we say how much we would spend, the hon. Gentleman gets up and says that we are spendthrifts. We are not having that. We believe that the money should be spent to sharply reduce the capacity.
Everyone agrees that there should be an effective decomissioning scheme. However, the Minister must consider a serious matter that has hung over the industry for many years. The Government talk of decommissioning as though it means only boats and property and not people. People will have to pay the price. Until the Government assure us that they will battle in every quarter to deal with the social consequences of decommissioning in tightly knit fishing communities that depend entirely on fishing for their living, they cannot command our respect.
I concede that the Minister quietened down after intervening like a jack-in-the-box—no pun intended—and toned down his remarks. No doubt he will say that he listened. However, will he, or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland if he replies to the debate, assure us that the postponement of the days-at-sea scheme that has been announced today will mean a fundamental review and, if necessary, new regulations or new primary legislation? If the Minister were to do that, I am sure that we could support him.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the length of the speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will be an example to hon. Members. I am keen to call as many hon. Members as possible, not least those from the minority parties.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I wish to make two brief points.
First, I emphasise the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Boats which have been allocated just 80 days are in a particularly difficult position. They are not eligible for decommmissioning. When I attended the Devon county show this year, I was concerned to be approached by an area manager of a national bank, which has been required to lend money to fishermen, particularly for newer boats. In his opinion, with 80 days, they would have great difficulty in servicing the loan, let alone being able to pay crew and others. That is a genuine problem, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider that grouping.
Secondly, I emphasise what has been said about non-precious stocks and fishermen, particularly those in the south-west, who fish primarily in area 7. For example, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, very little cod is caught in that area. Cod and haddock are a conservation problem. Because fishermen who fish primarily non-precious stocks are also subject to the days-at-sea policy, one aspect that worries them is not only the current


situation but non-precious stocks also becoming quota stocks and quotas being based on what they have caught in previous years. Because they have to be tied up in comparison with boats from other nations, particularly France and Spain, they fear that they would automatically be down on the list of what they would be eligible to catch of new quota species.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall follow your stricture to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister should look again at the Scottish National party manifesto. He will find that we proposed a doubling of decommissioning money over a two-year period. He will remember that at that time the Government were also committed to a two-year period for decommissioning, not the present three-year period. The Minister's argument about the costs of decommissioning is fallacious. There is a 70 per cent. grant from the Community. Admittedly, it comes off the Fontainebleau rebate, but, if we applied the argument to any part of European funding, we would never spend any money from Europe on anything. Why on earth should the fishing industry be discriminated against?
What is certainly true is that, over the past few years, hundreds of millions of ecus of structural funding have gone to other fleets within the European Community, and nothing whatsoever has come to fishermen in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. That should not be allowed to continue.
Will the Minister explain the split between decommissioning and effort limitation on the multi annual guidance premium targets? Theoretically, it could be 55 per cent. to 45 per cent. At no stage have we been told—many of us suspect that it is because the Minister does not know—what the exact trade-off is. I hope that the Minister also takes on board the argument that to restrict the decommissioning availability to boats which have fished 100 days in each of the past two fishing years might exclude boats which did not fish in the last two years for very good reasons, including conservation of stock.
I wish to read into the record a note that I received today from Hugh Allen, the secretary-designate of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association. The letter was sent to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), but, as we have heard, the hon. Gentleman is at a farewell dinner, so he is not here to present it to the House. The letter highlights the point which concerns fishermen about the tendering process which could result in some fishermen, even if they applied for decommissioning, ending up with no funds whatsoever.

Mr. Allen writes: To give you an illustration, a vessel built 15 years ago at a cost of £200,000 and kept in good condition would probably be worth £150,000 today and that figure is the level of the skipper's hid. She has a written down tax value of £10,000 so if he was successful with his application he would be liable to income tax at 40 per cent. of £140,000 which is £56,000, leaving £94,000 in the kitty. From this figure he has to repay any grants he received during that last three years. This figure could easily be £20,000 reducing his balance to £74,000.
An operating deficit with the salesman's office of £20,000 which must also be repaid now leaves him with £54,000. The clearing of £30,000 outstanding mortgage brings his pay down to £24,000 and the closing of £10,000 worth of electronics contracts leaves him with just £14,000.

Out of that £14,000, he must pay for the scrapping of the vessel—an average of £10,000—leaving £4,000 to disburse among the crew of the fishing vessel. In that illustration, a fisherman could theoretically—because of the tendering process forcing lower bids—end up with nothing from the decommissioning process.
I agree with the point often made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the previous decommissioning scheme. He has argued that, under that scheme, millions of pounds disappeared up the Humber to the friends of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and nothing whatsoever was made available to the fishing crews who were made redundant as part of that process. I should like to see some sign from the Minister that he is aware of the social consequences of boats which could be decommissioned out of the fleet.
We have had a change of course from the Minister tonight. He is not going ahead with the implementation of days at sea until 1 January 1994. I hope that that also represents a change of heart. Let us face the reality: the days-at-sea legislation is unenforceable. Anyone who has seen the demonstrations up and down the coastline in the past few months knows that the days-at-sea legislation cannot be imposed on the fishing industry.
While the Minister takes a few months to contemplate this matter, let him remember that, if he does not bury the days-at-sea legislation, it will bury him.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Underpinning this whole debate is the sense of community that the fishing communities feel and which they realise is under threat. Whether we are talking about a decommissioning scheme worth £25 million or £250 million, ultimately we are talking about the destruction of communities.
It is one thing to say that it is inevitable. It is one thing to say that if there are no fish left, there are no jobs for any fishermen—and it is proper to try to cope with that. However, as representatives of communities—I represent a fishing community—we must never lose sight of the fact that when we are having such a debate, we are talking about the destruction of ways of life and communities.
That way of life will often go back 200 or 300 years in the same family. Sometimes, the feelings of outrage, which can superficially seem unreasonable, are about a folk memory that goes deeply. When we have what may seem like a clinical discussion, it is important to face the fact that we are talking about the destruction of communities and ways of life that can never be replaced. That is certainly the first thing that I learnt from my acquaintance with a fishing community.
The second thing I learnt is that, no matter how modern technology is, fishing is still a dangerous job, because virtually every fishing family will have friends, relatives or acquaintances who ultimately did not come back from trips to sea. Few of us are called to display that type of raw courage in our working life. It says something about the way in which communities are reinforced and why they will find such debates so hard to take.
Another more pragmatic lesson that I learned from my meetings with fishing communities is that there will never be a consensus on how best to conserve fish stocks. When I started in politics, I thought that, if we talked enough and met enough people, and if we were reasonable enough, a consensus came through in the end. There is no consensus


that I can see or that is achievable among the fishing community about how stocks will be conserved. In the end— this is a hard point to make, but I hope that it is an honest one—there is no alternative to Parliament taking a view on how conservation measures will be enforced and then being prepared to stand by them. There is no consensus available.
Even when fishing communities realise that there can be no consensus on conservation, they feel that they have not been listened to. That is unfair, bearing in mind the considerable efforts of my hon. Friend's predecessor. I know him well. I am also conscious that he knew the effect that it would have on fishing communities.
The problem with politics in the 20th century is that perception sometimes matters every bit as much as reality. Sometimes, there was a feeling that the case of the fishing communities was not being listened to. Ideally, they wanted their assessment of the situation to be accepted. What they wanted at the very least was a feeling that, even if nothing could be done, ultimately they were being understood.
I was delighted with the turn of my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I have been greatly heartened by my meetings with my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Even if they could not do everything that we wanted for our domestic fishermen, I detected a desire and a keenness to understand and listen even when no ideal solution can be delivered.
I should like to think that my fishing community, listening to this debate and reading about it afterwards, will say, "It may not have contained everything that we wanted—how could it when no consensus exists?—but we have been listened to."
My hon. Friend's announcement that there is to be a moratorium on the effort restrictions came as much as a surprise to me as to anyone else. It will be possible, in the next few months, to listen to the fishing community yet again to see whether their concerns can be responded to. The position that my hon. Friend has adopted is extremely important.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: In view of the time, I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me, because others want to speak.
Secondly, even where it is accepted that nothing can be done, there is sometimes a feeling of outrage—I use the word deliberately—among the fishing community and members of the public that our communities are somehow being asked to bear the brunt while EC fishermen are not. I shall not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend earlier in the debate, but the assurance that he gave me was exactly what I wanted.
It is all too easy to say that we will not enforce any of our laws until the others do so. If we play that game so obviously, ultimately no targets are met by anyone and no fish are left. Although I should like it in my heart of hearts, I do not see how my hon. Friend could go so far as to say that we will not enforce our laws and meet our own obligations until we see that that has been done in advance by other countries.
But—it is an important "but" in the real world of trying to achieve something instead of indulging in empty rhetoric—my hon. Friend the Minister has made a clear statement that we shall do everything in our power to

ensure that our fishermen are not out there by themselves and our EC partners also obey the laws. That seems to be right, and the fishing community can take heart from it.
Although it sounds less exciting and rhetorical than the alternative—that we will not enforce our laws unless others enforce theirs—ultimately, it is a far more honest position to put before fishermen. That is why I was so pleased by my hon. Friend's contribution tonight.

Mr. James Wallace: I take issue with one point made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). He said that there was no consensus on conservation measures in the fishing industry. There is not only consensus but unity in the fishing industry's opposition to the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. It has united all aspects of the industry in all parts of the country.
I welcome the fact that the Government have slightly back tracked. They rushed this measure through in the early weeks of this Parliament, last year. They are now prepared to shelve it until 1 January. Although many of us would have preferred a total moratorium, I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to listen and said that he will try to meet Scottish fishermen by the end of this month.
I hope that he will take into account the fact that, although the industry opposes the days-at-sea legislation, if it is to exist and be fair, it must be fine-tuned far more than it is at present and take account of regional differences and pressures on stocks in different parts of the country.
The Minister should also answer the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the pelagic fleet has already met its MAGP target, why in the world do we need to impose days-at-sea restrictions on it? Last year, it could not even catch the full quota allocated to it.

Mr. Salmond: And the quota has gone up.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) reminds me that the quota has gone up, yet the pelagic fleet has been asked to accept further days-at-sea restrictions.
To reduce pressure on white fish stocks in the North sea, many vessels may like to travel to more distant waters and fish new species. The fact that they must be at sea longer to get to those distant waters means that they will spend even more time at sea. I hope that the Minister will allow an opportunity for flexibility on that count.
I hope that the Minister will discuss positively with the industry questions on technical conservation measures. He said that he was already working well with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on its conservation review. How and to what extent will technical conservation measures adequately substitute for days-atsea restrictions? Those restrictions were introduced in a Bill that we debated over a year ago, but they were presented to us then as a conservation measure. What the Minister has said tonight makes it clear that this scheme has far more to do with meeting our MAGP targets.
A number of questions need to be answered. First, what is the trade-off between a days-at-sea restriction or effort limitation and decommissioning, which takes capacity out of the fleet? We are now faced with a two-pronged attack, but we have not been told the conversion factor. I think that it is only fair to let the industry know where it stands.
Secondly, we want to know what other European nations have done about the balance between effort limitation and capacity reduction. I am told that, by 1 May 1993, the steps taken by member nations to secure MAGP compliance should have been reported. We want to know what other European Community nations are doing about days-at-sea restrictions.
It has already been pointed out that Opposition Members—and, to be fair, a number of Conservative Members—called for decommissioning for many years before it was eventually announced, a few weeks before the general election. When we say that this is too little, too late, we do not say it with the benefit of hindsight; we said it before. It has also been pointed out that the same view was expressed by a House of Lords Select Committee, which opined that the present decommissioning scheme —the one on offer—would probably do little more than meet the technical increase of 2 per cent. per annum.
If that is so, will the Minister tell us how he thinks the 55 per cent. decrease in capacity will be met if it is not to be met by a decommissioning scheme? What element is being allowed for the bankruptcies that we fear will inevitably follow if harsh days-at-sea restrictions are placed on people who will not be given an adequate opportunity to make a return on the capital that they have invested in their ports?
I hope that the Minister will also answer the question raised by a number of hon. Members about those who will be made redundant, but will not benefit from decommissioning payments.

Mr. Anthony Steen: My constituency includes the coastline from Paignton to Cornwall—about 88 miles of fishing coast. A number of ships in the area fish crab and lobster, which are not part of the quota. Will those crustacea be exempted from the days-at-sea and tie-up proposals?
I understand that, if the decommissioning grant is increased from £25 million to £100 million, the European Commission will give 70 per cent. back. If the British Government contributed £100 million, they would get £70 million back. As the £30 million that would go to the fishermen would be taxed, for £100 million given to our fishermen for decommissioning, the Government would have to spend only £20 million. Why can we not do the same as so many other European countries, which, having put such amounts into decommissioning, have taken many fishing boats off the seas and—rightly—recompensed the fishermen involved?
I believe not only that we should not implement the days-at-sea and tie-up provisions until other countries are involved in similar legislation, but—more importantly—that we should not do so until that legislation is also enforced by those countries. We have to be satisfied that every European country that fishes our seas has exactly the same rules and regulations as ours and that they are enforced in the same way.
I may have my figures wrong, but I understand that this country has about 270 fisheries officers enforcing the regulations on our fishermen. I think that there are only 17 —or is it 27?—such officers in Spain. Curiously, they seem all to be based in Madrid. Until there is a fair system, a

level sea as it were, there will be constant complaints from the fishing industry that the scheme is not working fairly. Fishermen will be prepared to accept the measures if they can see that they are fair and reasonable.
I thank the Minister and his staff for their courtesy. Within a week of taking office, the Minister came to Brixham to see my fishermen and explain the matter to me and to them. He also satisfied himself that they had a real problem.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I was glad to hear that the Minister will come to Northern Ireland if he is invited, but I was surprised to hear that the Minister responsible for fishing in Northern Ireland has not yet invited him to Northern Ireland. We shall certainly make representations to that Minister to ensure that such an invitation is extended.
I was disappointed by the belligerency of the Minister's speech. It displayed that element of arrogance that has been one of the problems with the Conservative Government in recent years, and it is the reason why they have lost support in the country. I hope that the Minister will listen more to hon. Members, including Northern Ireland Members. He was not prepared to do that earlier in the debate.
There are two major problems with the legislation, the first of which is the days at sea. That has caused great unease in the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom, and we heard about it from the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). In Northern Ireland, there is a special issue. Unlike the other fishing fleets, our fleet is in the Irish sea with a fleet from another nation—the Republic of Ireland. The fish obviously do not recognise any political border: they swim up and down the Irish sea.
The legislation will instruct the fishermen of Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie, "You must remain tied up in your ports and watch the southern Irish fishermen catching fish in the Irish sea that you should have the chance to catch." That is the discriminatory element in the legislation, and that is why it has been rejected by the fishermen of County Down.
There is still a lack of information about the impact of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister was short on detail. He did not answer the question, "Will it bring about a reduction of only about 5 per cent. in the size of the British fleet?" That has been suggested by the industry and by Opposition Members, but so far no Minister has come out openly and said that the £25 million scheme will have such an impact. We want an answer. What will be the impact of the decommissioning scheme?
Secondly, we need more detail about the average payments that will be made for fishing boats. Fishermen have no idea of the average amount that they will get. There have been vague suggestions of a tendering scheme. That is mentioned in the regulations and it was dealt with in two or three words by the Minister, but we have had no details about how the tendering scheme will work and what it will mean in pounds for the fishing boats. We need some guidance on that before we can reach our decision.
Postponing the implementation of the days-at-sea regulations until 1 January 1994 has only put off the evil day for a few months. As the fishing boats have applied for their allocation of days and the procedure is now under


way, will that procedure be stopped, will it still go ahead and all the fishing vessels be told how many half days they will have at sea, or will the scheme stop in the meantime?

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I must congratulate the Minister on a welcome performance at the Dispatch Box. Frankly, I dreaded it when he began his speech in such a combative fashion, and I thought that he was another in a long line of Ministers who would trample on us. However, it was a successful speech, introducing the decommissioning scheme that we have been awaiting for so long.
First, what took the Government so long? Why do all the arguments against a decommissioning scheme that were made with such theological certitude by the previous Minister two years ago no longer apply? However, it would be churlish to go on.
Secondly, the Minister has listened. I made a plea personally to him when he took office not to get into the same deadlock trench warfare as the previous Minister, but to listen to the fishermen and give them a chance and to use the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act as a sanction to get them to agree to conservation measures which would be much more effective in the long run. I am almost pathetically, gibberingly grateful to the Government for having listened and agreed to postpone the Act. I hope that they will now consider the possibility of abandoning it altogether.
The saving that would accrue from not implementing the Act, no matter what the costs are, whether £8 million or £4 million a year, would be the kernel of a bigger decommissioning scheme if the money from the EC were added to it, and that would achieve the purposes we want.
The decommissioning scheme that we are discussing today is not big enough. If it will take out 5 per cent. of the effort over three years, and if we take into account technical creep—which is not the name of the previous Minister, but the effects of technical improvement—we are trying to take out 20 per cent. plus 6 per cent. while achieving only 5 per cent., so 21 per cent. of the effort is still to be taken out and the scheme goes nowhere near to achieving that. Therefore, we need a bigger scheme.
I shall make one final point on tendering. It would be much better to have it in one big bag, to use all the money at once and to achieve the cumulative effect of taking out a big effort earlier. The problem is that we cannot target tendering at those vessels which took the most damage and which would deplete the stocks the most; it will go to those in desperate need. Had we introduced a scheme five years ago, people would have had the choice. Now we urgently need to get out first and quickly those with most damage. Tendering would have a disproportionate effect in Grimsby where many older vessels would be anxious to get out and would put in quite a low tender, but that would pull the prop out from under the Grimsby industry in a disastrous way.
I hope that the Minister will think again about tendering and about a bigger scheme, but most of all I hope he will use the breathing space which he has provided in his wisdom to get on with the conservation measures that the industry itself is taking such as segregated nets, which are a major improvement.
I do not see why the industry should have to continue the experiments. Why can they not be carried out by the

Department itself and by the Sea Fish Industry Authority rather than by the industry? National technical conservation measures have a bigger effect than the crude measure of getting out the effort by days-at-sea limitation. The Minister can tell the Commission that we have a better way and that he, the new Minister, developed it, and that is what we want.

Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief in my remarks, so that others can get in.
I noticed an article in The Sunday Telegraph entitled,
Those in peril cast for help as fleet flounders".
That article by Adam Nicholson mentioned the hon.
Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). It stated:
Her majority at Hastings is 6,634
and she is quoted as saying:
Anyway, I reckon that there are only 1,000 fishing votes in my constituency … Let's wait and see. I don't understand why
the fishermen "are so angry". I have news for the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House know why the fishermen are angry.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman should understand that, as ever, accuracy is not an attribute of many journalists.

Mr. McFall: We now have confirmation that we cannot trust The Sunday Telegraph.
All that we have from this debate is a three-month stay of execution for the days-at-sea legislation and a vague promise of a review of how the scheme will operate. As the House of Lords Select Committee said, it is too little, too late. We have a total of £25 million over three years.
The real question concerns the best way to go about conservation. Should we not listen to some of the fishermen's representatives? For example, the Scottish fishermen's representatives have written to me and other Scottish Members. They have said that there should be a quick burst in one year to relieve the fleet of the excess capacity as soon as possible. We find that we are reducing the fleet by 5 per cent., but we have signed up with the EC for 19 per cent.
The £25 million is worthy of further investigation. As the Minister knows, 70 per cent. of that grant is from the Community. Given that it is taxed with a combination of income tax and corporation tax, we could be talking about a figure of £3 million or £4 million. That is a miserly sum from the Government. Does not the Minister accept, even at this stage, the findings of the House of Lords Select Committee, that an effective decommissioning scheme will require £100 million, 70 per cent. of which can be covered by the EC Commission?
It is sometimes said that making sense of the fishing industry row is like trying to catch hold of an eel in a barrel of oil. Bob Allan of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation told me that the tie-up requirements, like no other single issue, have united the industry. Some questions arise from that. As has been mentioned in the past, between 1987 and 1991, nothing happened because of the Government's inactivity. Because of that Government failure, the EC Commission refused to make Community financing available to the United Kingdom fishing industry. Did the Government ever challenge that? How much Community aid was lost to United Kingdom fishermen as a result?
The Government need to adopt a system of management by objectives, driven by expert advice, and a decommissioning scheme informed by genuine dialogue. That genuine dialogue has been missing until now. As some speakers have said, this is about people and communities. It is about the viability of communities. The social consequences are extremely important in all fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom.
The Government could tonight give a commitment that they will enter into that meaningful dialogue. The Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office could give an indication of when the Minister will meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation so that it can get its point of view across.
The scheme buys some time for the Government, but, sadly, it does not buy a future for the industry, and we shall have to return to it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): It was rather disappointing, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State had brought new ideas and attitudes to the fishing industry, to hear such a niggardly and miserable response from the Opposition.
We have shown flexibility in fishing policy. We are glad to hold meetings and we were frequently asked when we would hold them. We shall, of course, hold them as soon as they can be arranged, but it is important not to say that we shall meet tomorrow or the day after, but for the fishing industry to advance constructive ideas. We are giving it the chance to do that between now and the end of September. We will consider its views carefully and reach decisions between then and the end of the year.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I have only about four minutes left.
The days-at-sea restrictions are postponed until 1 January and we shall consider the position at that time. In the meantime, we shall proceed with the £25 million decommissioning scheme over three years. That is an important step forward. Applications have been coming in steadily in the past few days and now approach 150 already. Fishermen see it as a good scheme.
We will continue our consultations in Europe and ensure that, as far as possible, the measures that we have agreed are fair throughout the Community.
We must be absolutely certain that we are conserving our fishing stocks; everything must be complementary to that and it must be scientific conservation, not just the good ideas of individual fishermen. It will be a constructive period for discussion. That is in the interests of the fishing industry, producer organisations and the processing industry, which has a large number of employees to be considered.
I see no reason why we should not achieve an amicable solution to the difficulties that have been facing the fishing industry this year. It can be done with good will on all sides, and I should have liked a bit more good will from the Opposition tonight. Let us see what we can achieve in the rest of the year.
I warmly thank my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for the many important ideas they advanced. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who was rather more generous than usual. I say to him that the sum to be met by the taxpayer is £20 million, which is the difference between the Fontainebleau agreement and the rebate.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the pelagic fleet. With the postponement of the days-at-sea regulations, that is an important issue, because it will give a clear run for the rest of the year and plenty of time to discuss the position for next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an important contribution. He must remember that the decommissioning scheme is only for boats longer than 10 m, whereas many of the boats he mentioned will be under 10 m. We must discuss the other issue when we meet the fishing organisations.

Mr Steen: Will my hon. Friend say something about crabs and lobsters?

Sir Hector Monro: Charm has a better chance of intervening than the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I shall be pushed to say anything about crabs and lobsters in two minutes, but my hon. Friend and his fishermen will be able to put their good points to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I re-emphasise that we are giving the fishing industry a real opportunity. We have backed right off the days-at-sea restrictions to allow plenty of time to consult. I say to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that we shall file applications, and fishermen will be able to hold discussions with the Ministry. If they are unhappy with the decision made by the Department, they can appeal to the tribunal. We shall thus be able to determine each boat's eligibility.
We have had a worthwhile debate. I am glad that we have been able to get across the issues that are so important to the fishermen, who have a great opportunity to discuss them with Ministers. I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion before the end of the year, which will open new opportunities for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 22.

Division No. 326]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bates, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Congdon, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Day, Stephen
Milligan, Stephen


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Monro, Sir Hector


Duncan, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Neubert, Sir Michael


Eggar, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fabricant, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Forman, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Powell, William (Corby)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Fry, Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gallie, Phil
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gorst, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Soames, Nicholas


Hague, William
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Spring, Richard


Harris, David
Sproat, Iain


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hawksley, Warren
Steen, Anthony


Heald, Oliver
Stephen, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Stern, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Streeter, Gary


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Sweeney, Walter


Hughes Robert G (Harrow W)
Sykes, John


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jenkin, Bernard
Thomason, Roy


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thurnham, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Legg, Barry
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lightbown, David
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Willetts, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wilshire, David


Malone, Gerald
Wood, Timothy


Mans, Keith



Marland, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian



Merchant, Piers





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Salmond, Alex


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Simpson, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Loyden, Eddie
Welsh, Andrew


Macdonald, Catum



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Mahon, Alice
Mr. John D. Taylor and Mr. David Trimble.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.

That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1345), dated 25th May 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1507), dated 15th June 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Print Works (Emissions)

Ms Mildred Gordon: I present a petition from 1,645 people who are resident in east London. It expresses concern about the increased incidence of asthma, of meningitis and of cancer in London and about the possible connection between newspaper print works, many of which have now relocated from Fleet street to residential areas in Tower Hamlets, and those diseases. The petititoners note that traces of toxic compounds associated with printing have been found in the blood and urine samples of local residents and in household dust and drinking water.
The petitioners request that an immediate study be undertaken of the effects of combined emissions to the atmosphere and to water from materials and chemical compounds used by national newspaper print works in the docklands area.

To lie upon the Table.

Young People (Benefits)

Mr. Alan Simpson: - I present a petition gathered by people in Nottingham which comprises over 6,000 signatures. It declares the petitioners' concern about the poverty affecting the lives of young people as a result of the harsh and discriminatory nature of the age-related benefits system. The petition says:
The Petitioners therefore request that, in order to alleviate youth poverty, the House of Commons urge the Government to restore the right to income support to 16 and 17 year olds who cannot find work or a suitable youth training placement, and to end the discriminatory treatment of 18–24 year olds, who live independently, by restoring their right to benefits on the same basis as those aged over 25.

To lie upon the Table.

UNESCO

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Conway].

Miss Emma Nicholson: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak on the subject of UNESCO. I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have put the case for the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO since we left it in 1985. I first pay tribute to the most eminent of those colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has so often said that the United Kingdom should never have left UNESCO and that the earlier we return the better.
Secondly, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who, since we left UNESCO, has consistently called for us to rejoin. Indeed, in the debate when we left UNESCO my hon. Friend said:
Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be received with deep sadness and will be greeted by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with a certain degree of bitterness? We shall leave our friends in UNESCO to argue our case and continue the battle that my right hon. Friend began so well and pursued with such vigilance … I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that it cannot be in Britain's interests to reduce our influence in such an important international organisation."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 451.]
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), a member of the United Nations Association working committee on UNESCO, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), the chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who is also here this evening and is a member of the UNA working committee, and many other hon. Members whose names are on the early-day motion on the order paper today. That early-day motion urging the Government to rejoin UNESCO was signed by 247 hon. Members.
I pay warm tribute to the staff of the United Nations office in London and in particular Mr. Rashid Kareh, who has been so supportive throughout these years. I also pay tribute to the other organisations which have kept in contact with UNESCO in professional ways. They range from the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which so many of us are honorary members, to organisations such as Exeter university, which receives fellows and chairs from United Nations organisations such as UNESCO.
The purpose and history of UNESCO is well known to the House. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we left in 1985. Our knowledge of UNESCO has been kept alive and warm since then by the creation soon after that, at the suggestion of several Members of Parliament and of another place and of professional and academic people, of a committee under the umbrella of the United Nations Organisation. Roughly half its membership of 40 comes from the House of Commons or the other place. That is why we have had debates in both Houses. The more recent ones were on 22 May and 4 December 1992 in this place and on 14 March in the other place. I suggest that the work of that group has kept knowledge of UNESCO so alive in this place.
It is worth recalling that the United Kingdom was the founder member of UNESCO. It came into being as a result of the initiative taken by Rab Butler, known to so

many of us when we were children or young people entering into politics, who was then President of the Board of Education of the United Kingdom, and Sir Malcolm Roberts, the then chairman of the British Council. In 1942 they invited Ministers of Education of the allied countries to form a conference of allied Ministers of Education. That conference was UNESCO's starting point. It was a manifestation of a climate of hope for the future. It was an initiative of the United Kingdom.
The principal purpose of UNESCO described in the constitution was and remains
to contribute to peace and security be promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed … by the Charter of the United Nations.
Indeed, the first paragraph of the preamble to the constitution reads:
since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
Today, from that early beginning in the dark days of the second world war in London, 173 member states belong to UNESCO. Who are the absentees? The most marked of the absentees have to be the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
I greatly respect the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in this and other matters. I suggest —I believe that he will agree with me on this—that UNESCO is a changed body. When we left in 1985, it was overstaffed, slack in thinking, and top-heavy. Although we were sorry to leave, the Minister for Overseas Development at the time made at least a partially convincing case. I have, however, always agreed with the French that the person who is absent is the person who is always wrong, and that we would have done better to have stayed in and reformed UNESCO even more swiftly.
Let me give one example of the transformed UNESCO under its present management. On 25 June this year-12 days ago—President Yeltsin met UNESCO's director-general in Moscow on the occasion of the signing of a memorandum of co-operation. That is a most remarkable document. I have in my hand a press report of it, sent to me by Mr. Tom Forstenzer, from the Paris office of UNESCO. It tells us that, on 25 June, Fredrico Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO, and the President of the Russian Federation met in Moscow to sign a memorandum to strengthen
co-operation between Russia and UNESCO in the Organisation's fields of competence.
In particular, it concentrated—
on support for, and development of, democratic change in the country"—
a most important and critical focus—
preservation of the cultural and natural heritage, transmission of information and training of personnel (in management, copyright and other sectors).
It spans the sectors of culture, education, science and communication.
The press report says:
Some key activities in the field of culture are in the reconstruction and modernisation of the Bolshoi Theatre and the Russian State Library, both in Moscow, and the Hermitage in St Petersburg.
Those are places well known to many of us. On top of that,
special attention is given to the EUROLINGUAUNI project, which aims at improving knowledge of foreign languages and increasing student exchanges in the human sciences. UNESCO will also assist in the preparation of new legislation regarding education.


Is not something of that magnitude a project of such value that the United Kingdom and the United States of America should not only warmly welcome it, but, in an honourable world, wish to be involved in it? Do not we honestly wish to participate in something of such value to the world? We pride ourselves on being in the forefront of assisting Russia and other former Soviet Union countries to inherit the democratic traditions that we have matured, and to learn them from us. Why then are we content to be on the outside while those important and exciting activities are going on?
That was not the only large activity that took place that week. UNESCO was a meeting place for all those around the world who are expert in different ways of protecting and restoring ancient stone and brick. One need only look across the road to see how wonderfully Westminster abbey has been enhanced by the tremendous programme that we have undertaken. Was not it France that started that initiative, many years ago, under the banner of UNESCO, in cleaning up the wonderful monuments of Paris? We have been johnny-come-latelys to that work. Should we not have been part of that conference as well?
This week, UNESCO is home to a meeting of specialists in the teaching of science at primary and secondary level —a matter of major concern not just in the United Kingdom but in all other countries. There is also a high-level meeting of experts on solar energy, the solar summit. Each of those important recent events shows us that UNESCO is acting in sectors of vital interest to the United Kingdom—preserving monuments, exploring more effective teaching methods that link the latest research to early learning experience, advancing renewable energy techniques and building bridges to newly fledged democracies. What more exciting programme could any of us wish to be involved in?
I am indebted to Dr. Colin Power, the director of education of UNESCO, for giving me a breakdown, in percentage tenns as well as in actuals, of the current expenditure of UNESCO. The budget is remarkably small for the large undertakings in which UNESCO is involved. I remind the House that the biennial figures are 38 per cent. on education; 22.5 per cent. on science; 17 per cent. on culture; 11.2 per cent. on communication; 9.3 per cent. on social sciences and 2 per cent. which is sectoral. That breakdown is of particular importance to us all.
Under the education heading, I have learnt of the excellence of today's UNESCO. I visited the head office in Paris recently where I met for the second time Mr. Frederico Mayor, the director-general. I also met Dr. Colin Power, who, as I have already said, is assistant director-general for education. I met the director of the combating illiteracy project, Mr. Peter Higginson, and also Birgitte Moller, who is the chief of section for contracts with other donors. I met another wonderful donor organiser, Ms Basma Irsheid, who is chief of the unit for good will ambassadors and the special adviser for Arab funding sources. I also met the senior special adviser and deputy director-general, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Tom Forstenzer, the executive officer.
I found UNESCO in Paris today to be a centre of excellence, with a rigour of thinking and an economy of style carried out by top-flight people with whom, I believe, the United Kingdom should wish to be associated. I sought—and I believe will achieve—a contract partnership between UNESCO and the AMAR appeal to provide education in refugee camps.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have an interest in helping the plight of children, particularly in refugee camps. I approached UNESCO to assist a particular group of Iraqi children in south-west Iran who have been in camps there for more than two years. I knew that only UNESCO would be able to assist me because, within the United Nations family, UNESCO holds the mandate on education and recognises education as a basic human right and its essential place in any scheme that proposes to offer humanitarian assistance to the young.
UNESCO seeks to assist in the provision of sustainable education resources for children and young people with a view to protecting their individual futures in a developing world. I believe, and I have put this proposal to Paris, that UNESCO has skills and resources that can be channelled effectively to the Iraqi Shia community children in south-west Iran in partnership with the AMAR appeal.
I sought this debate tonight not just because of the general excellence of UNESCO. Many colleagues have made such points over the past seven years with greater knowledge than I have. I sought this debate because, in recent weeks, I have had this hands-on, basic experience of the excellence of UNESCO. After all, UNESCO could have said to me, "There are just a few thousand children down there. They're out of sight. There are only 6,500 or 10,000, so what are you talking about? What has that got to do with us? What have camps and emergencies to do with education?"
Instead, Mr. Frederico Mayor said, "Of course we shall help. We will do all we can with you to meet the childrens' and teachers' needs." That concern for the education of young people caused me to request this debate. I believe that only UNESCO could open the doors. For two years earlier I had sought to bring education to those children. It was not until I went to UNESCO that I found an understanding and professionalism and ready response that has already begun to show fruition in partnership with the AMAR appeal and our host country, Iran, for those children.
I have also referred to the high percentage of UNESCO's budget that is devoted to science. As a member of the Medical Research Council from this place, I have a particular interest in that. I referred earlier to the Royal Society of Chemistry. I have been in contact with the society's parliamentary affairs officer, Mr. Stephen Benn, who is known to many of us. He told me of the Royal Society's wish that we should rejoin UNESCO. Indeed, he tells me that the council has now agreed to submit a formal request to the Government in support of United Kingdom re-entry and that the council is taking a close interest in our debate.
He reminds me that UNESCO carries out the work that the society promotes—the important work that there is still to do in science and environmental work, such as the need in 1992–95 to provide advanced training for 3,000 mathematicians, physicists, chemists and biologists, to award research grants and to establish 15 to 20 pilot projects for updating teaching materials and science curricula.
The recent White Paper on science surely impressed upon us all the importance of the development of science for the United Kingdom. That is one good reason why we should rejoin UNESCO.
Perhaps it was because of the excellence of UNESCO's commitment to science that, on 20 May this year, 37 Nobel laureates who are residents of the United States of


America and outside it personally presented a declaration with other eminences to President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore. I have that declaration with me. The signatures are astounding in their importance and value to the world of science and in the wider world of us all.
A concurrent resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives and the United States Senate at the same time. That was followed in June by two full days of hearings. One was spent on hearings from nongovernmental organisations and one was spent on government organisations. That large piece of work stemmed from the efforts made by the Paris office to show the United States of America that UNESCO is indeed transformed. Perhaps because of that, the concurrent resolution asks the President to
develop a strategy to bring the United States back into active and full membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation.
Congressman Howard Berman said:
The US was right to leave UNESCO in 1984. Politicisation of the communications programmes"—
perhaps that was the nub of the issue here—
and discrimination against … a member state".
It is a long statement, but he goes on to say:
We should rejoin now because UNESCO has solved the problems which led to our withdrawal. From protecting the global environment to building independent news organisations to educating the world's youth, UNESCO can significantly further our national interests in international intellectual and cultural exchanges, free communication across borders, the promotion of democracy, sustainable development, and international economic competitiveness.
The US was one of the founding members of UNESCO, because, in the wake of world war Two, we profoundly understood the importance of education, culture, science and communication to the maintenance of international peace and stability.
I commend the concurrent resolution to the House. It states:
UNESCO has elected new leadership, instituted tightened financial controls and strategic planning, cut staff and budget, renewed professionalism, restored recognition of intellectual property, returned the organisation to the principle of an unfettered, independent international press, therefore addressing and redressing the criticisms which formed the justification for the United States' withdrawal.
Those critical points are surely even more vital to those of us who watched the fiasco of the human rights congress in Vienna, when the Minister himself fell foul of its organisers' incompetence and was unable to deliver his speech on behalf of this nation. Surely UNESCO, which is now an excellent organisation, as witnessed by those statements in the concurrent resolution, is a body which can promote human rights ideals in the way in which it is tasked to do.
Now is the time to show our good faith in the ideals and practicalities of UNESCO and rejoin the organisation that we promised to rejoin when adequate reform was accomplished. All of us now agree that that is the case. I ask the Minister if we can honestly remain credible if we delay.
I refer to the point made by the previous Minister of Overseas Development when he was questioned whether we were merely running where the Americans led and simply copying the withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO. I quote his reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn):

The right hon. Gentleman has a mania of finding conspiracy wherever he looks. We have been under no pressure from the United States Government to make this decision. They have pursued their policy quite independently of our own. I say firmly to the right hon. Gentleman that, although we have decided that this international organisation is not doing its job effectively, that in no sense means that, we are opposed to international organisations or the United Nations."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 450.]
I think that I am correct in saying that, this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—I wait to be corrected if the wording is not accurate—that, if the United States or Singapore were to rejoin UNESCO, the United Kingdom situation would be reviewed and a political decision would have to be made. In essence, that means that, if the United Kingdom was alone on the outside, the Government would have to act.
It is time to act now before we lose credibility. I have put those two quotations together to highlight our need to think and act independently on such important matters. I know the constraints that are on our Government and their budget and those that are pressed on the Foreign Office and its work internationally—which I support so much—through the Overseas Development Administration, the British Council and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Indeed, I know about the new funding pressures that are put on us by our membership of the European Community.
The Minister could ask people such as myself and others to assist him to raise the money. Does he agree in principle that UNESCO is an organisation that we would be right to rejoin if we could find the cash?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on securing this Adjournment debate on a subject of some importance. She knows that we last had an Adjournment debate on this subject on 22 May 1992. Indeed, we discussed it more recently because earlier today I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on precisely this issue. My hon. Friend, who has obviously had a report of what I said in Committee, will find that what I say now bears a striking resemblance to what I said then—in short, the Government are capable of considerable consistency when they must.
I shall reduce to a few points the position that we have adopted with regard to UNESCO. The United Kingdom and Singapore left UNESCO at the end of 1985, one year after the Americans left, and for broadly the same reasons. We have remained in close contact with the Americans and have shared assessments of the organisation ever since. My hon. Friend asked what I said in Committee about rejoining UNESCO. I broadly said that that creates a new situation. If the Americans and the Government of Singapore were to decide to return to UNESCO, we would have to review our position but without any commitment.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister knows that I am no longer the Opposition spokesman dealing with UNESCO, but I was for nine years. I know that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is now our spokesman, when I say that we agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss


Nicholson) that Britain should never have come out of UNESCO and should now be in it. The Minister is implying that, if the Americans return, we will return on their coat tails.
Does the Minister agree that it might be appropriate for Britain, as a founding country of UNESCO, to take a lead and not to follow on this important issue?

Mr. Hogg: We dealt with that point before the Select Committee. The answer is that at present we are in decent company in remaining out. If the Governments of Singapore and the United States rejoin, we shall be isolated. That would create a new situation, and we would then want to reconsider our position but without any commitment.
When we look back to our decision in 1985, we are satisfied that our decision to leave was sound. Our reason for withdrawal, shared by the Americans, was prompted by concern about some six problem areas: programme concentration; duplication of the activities of other United Nations agencies; special programme issues—my hon. Friend referred to those—particularly the New World Information and Communications Order; decentralisation; administration and efficiency; and budget.
Since then, the position has changed because satisfactory progress has been achieved in all those areas, with the exception of decentralisation. UNESCO still lacks a coherent policy on decentralisation and it still needs to present a focused approach, drawing together the strands of its broad mandate, from science to education and culture to promoting freedom of the press. We, like many member states, wish to see more effort devoted to achieving further concentration.
However, if we were now members of UNESCO, we would probably not leave. I accept, too, that in an ideal world it is desirable to belong to all the United Nations organisations. I accept the desirability of universal membership.
A major constraint is the cost of resuming our UNESCO membership. Were we to rejoin today, our assessed contribution for the rest of 1993 would be some £4.5 million. In 1994 and 1995, those costs would be almost £11 million a year, falling to £8 million if the United States were to rejoin. We would also need to weigh up the cost of additional staff both at our UNESCO observer mission and in London to deal with extra UNESCO duties, and with the re-established United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO. Those costs would amount to about an extra £250,000 a year.
The money for resuming our UNESCO membership would almost certainly have to come from the ODA bilateral programmes. There are no surplus funds and no probability of new money. Therefore, a decision on if and when to rejoin depends on spending priorities.
Since 1986, most of the money saved from what could have been our assessed contribution to UNESCO—£6.4 million in 1986—has remained in the ODA's budget, and the funds have been used for activities that are well targeted and over which the ODA can exercise tight control.
In 1986, the former UNESCO money was reallocated to activities falling within the areas of UNESCO's competence. The ODA continues to allocate substantial sums for priority activities in those areas. There is a danger that, were we to rejoin UNESCO, we would have to on such allocations. In short, Ministers would have to make some difficult decisions on shifting money for existing worthy projects from the bilateral programme.
In broadly summing up the position, I accept that UNESCO has carried out substantial reforms. There remain areas in which—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having been continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve midnight.